£25 to see the Doctor?

lazer

chewmylegoff wrote: »

All the people saying that it will cause deaths as people won't go to the doctor should consider the fact that in many other countries whose healthcare outcomes are better than ours are you do have to pay an access fee. Personally it seems to me that we should be seeking to implement the system which provides the best outcome rather than fixate on whether we pay for it at point of use or via our taxes...

Overall healthcare outcomes may be higher (IO hav not researched it so am not sure) but it is probaly at the expense of the poor, if you considered the health outcomes of the poor in a country with private heatlhcare and in the UK, the people in the UK probably have a better chance

moneyistooshorttomention

I have mixed feelings on this.

Personally, I would be okay about paying a minimal charge to see the doctor (say £10) PROVIDED it was a typical "old-fashioned family doctor" type scenario again and I got a decent length/on time appointment (say 20 minutes for an appointment). It would be worth it to me to have a proper "old-fashioned" take their time about checking me out/remember me personally etc type doctor and know I would be pretty certain to get an appointment when required and a good chance of getting in on time. I would object to a "modern style" doctor appointment being chargeable so, if anyone thought I'd be prepared to hand over my hard-earned dosh and still only get an appointment some days later for just a few minutes with whatever-doctor-was-available, then I wouldn't see why I should pay for that poor level of service.

So - IF I could get that decent level of service - then I would think it worth it. I would just love to have a "Dr Finlay doctor" rather than knowing that what usually happens at the moment is I do all sorts of research if I have something wrong and then go to the doctor and tell them whats wrong and what I am having for it or, at the least, I know that what they are saying is a very broad brush approach and I've probably got a better idea than they have as to what is wrong with me. THEY are the ones trained as doctors, so how come I am so often the one to have to do the diagnosis and prescription for them (in my case any rate)?

Even for someone with my particular take on this though, it absolutely would not be fair to have to pay for a doctor appointment that I was only having to have because of an employer, rather than myself, iyswim. I'd be willing to pay for my style of doctor appointment if I was the one who had decided to go but, if I were having to go because an employer wanted a sick certificate or something, then I would be looking to the employer to pay and would refuse to do so myself.

The_White_Horse

this is a terrible idea because the decent working people will have to pay and once again the rotten benefit brigade, spongers, illegal immigrants and general drunk low life will get it for free. Another idea of "fairness"in the UK.

why not make the NHS free for the taxpayers who pay to keep it going and everyone else can pay for what they use?

michaels

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I have mixed feelings on this.

Personally, I would be okay about paying a minimal charge to see the doctor (say £10) PROVIDED it was a typical "old-fashioned family doctor" type scenario again and I got a decent length/on time appointment (say 20 minutes for an appointment).

So here is another interesting one. Some people would like to be able to pay an add-on to upgrade the NHS experience to the private version - eg if it costs the NHS £50 for a GP appointment then there could be the option to go private with the private doctor getting £50 from the NHS plus whatever they choose to charge on top. It coudl be similar with the dentist - rather than choosing to pay 45 quid for an NHS metal filling or 150 for a private white one there could be the option for the £45 to be deducted from the cost of the private one.

Back on topic there seem to be lots of public health and overall cost reasons for not restricting access to GPs but there are two problems with this, if it is free there is no incentive for people not to miss apointments and it actually artificially benefits the time rich who can make an apointment for the slightest niggle at the expense of the employed who do not want the cost and hassle of taking time off work and are thus likely to under use the service.

This brings us back to my suggestion of having some non-financial incentive to keep appointments and may be even too encourage preventative check ups if these are cost effective.

Combining these thoughts, what about allowing pre booked fixed time appointments at a time/date of choice for an additional payment. Standard daytime free appointments for all but for those who have missed an appointment without cancelling the option is to turn up for a 'GP clinic' where you have to wait your turn. So a premium service for those who can pay, a free service for those who can't and a deterrent to missing appointments in terms of time rather than cost?

adindas

ringo_24601 wrote: »

It's a stupid, stupid idea.

It will hammer A&E - people would rather go there (where it would be free) rather than pay £25

It would annoy me quite a bit too - it's very rare I go to a GP without knowing what I need (which is usually various allergy or asthma medicines). I'd rather see better ways to allow people to self medicate - maybe some way of getting more medicines over the counter.

People can not be fooled. It is a money making machine and I will say abuse of power and left people with no other alternatives.

I do not know where there is enough evidence that people are wasting GP time. If people especially in full time employment will need to invest time and opportunity cost to go to GP. Why do they need to make to make an appointment if they do not have to and loosing potential money they could otherwise earn ?

It seems to me that people from outside could see the light better than the one from inside NHS who are just interested in raising their income.

ILW wrote: »

Charging £25.00 at A & E could be useful.

- Fully agree. PLUS

- Charging the one who missed their appointment without any advanced notice.
- NHS to become more efficient. It is a general knowledge that they spend a lot of taxpayers money for conference, unnecessary training for their staffs.
- Closing the gap to the one who do not entitled to and the one who never contribute to the system.

lostinrates

I am in favour of a small fee for appointments.


Today I have had a problem (which occurs almost monthly) caused by my surgery with my repeat prescription. Perhaps they will start paying to sort out the missed prescriptions they haven't filled?

The_White_Horse

i think A&E need to have a proper order of treating patients - and I don't mean according to the severity of the accident or emergency. Children should always be seen first. Then people who pay the most tax. There should be cards ie platinum for higher rate, gold for basic etc. A platinum holder will be seen before a gold. The nature of the emergency is irrelevant. All that matters is the platinum holder has paid more. then the benefit brigade, spongers, health tourists, drunks, criminals etc get seen at the end. If they die waiting, it is simply an added bonus.

robmatic

wotsthat wrote: »

I still don't know why people trust the government to run Europe's biggest employer.

How do most people think it would work out if all car repairs had to be carried out at state run workshops? Most people, I think, would agree that it would be a shambles but we trust politicians with our health.

I don't understand why we buy into the 'national treasure' gumpf but spend exactly zero seconds considering whether other healthcare models lead to better health.

To me it's odd that the other healthcare model that is presented to us is the US one. I spent a fair amount of time last week talking to a couple of American healthcare professionals (a junior doctor and a surgeon) about our relative systems and came away with a renewed respect for the NHS. Healthcare in the US is more expensive despite only covering a proportion of the population, complicated and irrational in many aspects, and their hospitals can still rival ours for poor management and inefficiency.

Jennifer_Jane

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

I think that's taking dumming down a bit too far.

People ill enough to make an appointment to see doctor shouldn't need a reminder.

Anyone needing to cancel is being lazy, inconsiderate and wasteful if they don't do so. Unless there is a valid reason (ie family emergency) they should be penalised by paying a fee for timewasting on their next appointment.

I agree with all your points, except where you think that it should be "dumming down". I disagree that it is "dumming down", and really don't understand your point. Surely anything that reduces missed appointments would be a good thing. It's a wonder it hasn't already been implemented. My hairdresser has the system, my dentist, as mentioned. So since the appointments are automated for doctors' practices, I'm unsure what the problem would be.

Your thread borders on rudeness, so forgive mine for pointing out that the word "dumming" is incorrect. It should be "dumbing".

[Deleted User]

robmatic wrote: »

To me it's odd that the other healthcare model that is presented to us is the US one. I spent a fair amount of time last week talking to a couple of American healthcare professionals (a junior doctor and a surgeon) about our relative systems and came away with a renewed respect for the NHS. Healthcare in the US is more expensive despite only covering a proportion of the population, complicated and irrational in many aspects, and their hospitals can still rival ours for poor management and inefficiency.

You must remember - in the UK, overspending on healthcare is seen as 'wasting money'. In the US, the entire goal is to make people overspend and line the pockets of hospitals, insurance companies and doctors.

We should be looking more at the relative systems in France, Germany and Ireland where there is a part-payment system involved.