£25 to see the Doctor?

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

What % of the money going into the NHS goes on 'actual care'?

What matters more is the cost & whether the care is effective.

Probably about 50% but then it costs half as much. I kind of get a warmer fell from a degree of possible inefficiency rather than profiteering though when it has do with peoples well being. I couldn't give a flying fig if Apple make ludicrous profits as that is real consumer choice.

Across the whole picture I remain to be convinced that the health picture is better. for all. I don't dispute that platinum and gold care programmes are likely to offer better than average outcomes. But for those to be above average there will no doubt be a corresponding shortfall for those at the bottom of the pile.

Sadly health insurance and care is an emotive subject as when the grim reaper knocks no amount of money is going to save anyone as I have witnessed more than once.

grizzly1911

Dimey wrote: »

I think the NHS should get payment in advance from non-residents (ie. tourists) or non-national insurance payers who use the service like other countries do. I bet that would solve any deficit, especially if they charged a premium price.

AIUI the government state that only about £30million a year is lost by non recovery.

If that is true I find this a ridiculously small amount compared to the size of the organisation and the numbers that go through the doors.

30 year sago I suffered a motorbike accident and I was taken to A&E by ambulance. I was allowed out after a cursory once over but was billed for the emergency care which my insurance paid. Anyone know if this still occurs?

[Deleted User]

grizzly1911 wrote: »

AIUI the government state that only about £30million a year is lost by non recovery.

If that is true I find this a ridiculously small amount compared to the size of the organisation and the numbers that go through the doors.

30 year sago I suffered a motorbike accident and I was taken to A&E by ambulance. I was allowed out after a cursory once over but was billed for the emergency care which my insurance paid. Anyone know if this still occurs?

Even this idea of £25 per GP visit would 'only' raise £1b of revenue - 1% of the NHS budget

The_White_Horse

why doesn't the govt pay doctors, chemists, pharmacists, researchers etc to design and make drugs, rather than be beholden to the likes of Glaxo etc. if the Govt actually makes drugs that work they could licence them abroad and that could pay for a large chunk of the NHS. Sort of like what the BBC does with Top Gear.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

It is the thin end of the wedge.

Services won't improve, taxes won't reduce. Costs to the individual will increase and will continue to increase with age until they become unaffordable, to the many. The level and type of cover will be limited by the amount you can afford to pay. TWH jokes about bronze, silver, gold, platinum but that will become reality.

Employers may pick up some of the bill which will add to their costs, making them less competitive, reducing employment chances and choice of "career" movement for those receiving the"perk".

Those that make most use of the existing system are likely to be exempt (under the current prescription arrangements) young, maternity, old, benefits etc. meaning a higher burden an the squeezed middle.

I am sure Greece will show what happens when you can't afford health provision.

McKee said the failure of European governments and the European Commission to face up to the health consequences of their policies was reminiscent of the "obfuscation" of the tobacco industry over curbs on smoking.
The case of Iceland, however, suggests there is an alternative.
Despite a devastating financial crisis, Iceland rejected austerity, following a referendum, and instead continued to invest in its social welfare system. As a result, the researchers found there had been no discernible effects on health since the crisis.
Iceland's economy has now returned to growth, but the recovery is patchy and inflation has remained stubbornly high.
By contrast, McKee and colleagues reported that healthcare systems were now under strain in many European countries, including Spain, Portugal and Greece, with a series of negative consequences.
In particular, there is a growing trend for patients to seek care at a later stage, even though this will mean worse outcomes for individuals and higher costs for the healthcare system in the long term.
In Greece, meanwhile, hospitals are struggling to maintain basic standards, resulting in a rise in antibiotic resistant infections, and patients have suffered shortages of a number of medicines, including epilepsy treatments.


http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_27/03/2013_490137


I read an article recently that suggested that over 50% of the cost of the US private schemes went to the insurers rather than into the actual care. Claim limitation being the the name of the game.


Singapore and Iceland? Not sure I would trust any individual political party to implement change.

I'm not really sure that Iceland is a good model.

Basically they took a simple racist solution... honour the debts of Icelandic people and don't pay foreigners.

Amys

Carl31 wrote: »

So if you were genuinely ill, really concerned for your health, checked all other resources like NHS direct and a visit to your GP was required, you would have to consider the cost? even if it was life threatening?

Theres not much point paying for 'stuff' if you're too ill to use it

Of course you would have to consider the cost, if you haven't got it how can you pay it?


If you go and do not have the money, would they turn you away anyway?

If you are a mother with children to feed, struggling on a low wage and you have a lump, which may or may not be serious, what do you do? Waste £25 on something which may not be serious (but could also turn out to be fatal without treatment), or deal with the immediate need of feeding your children, possibly thinking you will deal with the lump later.

Thank is just an example. I am not saying do not charge at all, but there has to be a way to meet the needs of those who simply do not have the money to pay, remembering that delaying treatment of many conditions can also increase the total care costs.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not really sure that Iceland is a good model.

Basically they took a simple racist solution... honour the debts of Icelandic people and don't pay foreigners.

I was really making the point that they have continued to invest in their welfare systems v. retracting.

If the UK were to declare it self nominally bankrupt I wonder whether it would honour its overseas commitments or those of its residents.

Enough people here seem to regard deposits as investments and thus subject to ultimate loss. If you invest in an unregulated institution then the risks are greater.

CLAPTON

Amys wrote: »

Of course you would have to consider the cost, if you haven't got it how can you pay it?


If you go and do not have the money, would they turn you away anyway?

If you are a mother with children to feed, struggling on a low wage and you have a lump, which may or may not be serious, what do you do? Waste £25 on something which may not be serious (but could also turn out to be fatal without treatment), or deal with the immediate need of feeding your children, possibly thinking you will deal with the lump later.

Thank is just an example. I am not saying do not charge at all, but there has to be a way to meet the needs of those who simply do not have the money to pay, remembering that delaying treatment of many conditions can also increase the total care costs.

Yes indeed, if we moved to a 'pay something' scheme some people would die whereas today they won't.

On the other hand people are dying unnecessarially now because doctors / A&E can't allocate sufficient time to genuine patients because their time is occupied by people seeking inappropriate attention.

So the issue is there a better way?

borkid

lazer wrote: »

This is wrong - health care should be free at the point of access.

Many people will not visit the doctor when they should if they had to pay and delaying a visit can make things worse and can cost the NHS more in the long run.

I visit my doctor once every 6 months for a repeat prescription of the contraception pill (as they have to take my blood pressure) and would really resent paying £25 for this 2 minunte visit.

Maybe for routine visits like this a nurse could take your blood pressure. For other routine visits nurses should play a more prominent role they should at least be able to assess the need for a doctors appointment.

I rarely go to the doctors and would resent paying any thing, I've already paid via taxes and NI. Charges should be for missed appointments initially then maybe introduce them if you need to see the doctor more than say once a month ( this doesn't include chronic illnesses which have been diagnosed) or whatever is needed to weed out the timewasters.

Callie22

I'm fortunate to have found an NHS dentist and the last time I went, when I paid for my check-up, the receptionist commented that I was the first person that day to have paid anything (and no I wasn't the first patient).

The same thing would happen if they introduced charges for GP appointments. There would be so few people paying that it wouldn't be worthwhile to create a system to collect and record the payments.