NHS Hygienist

mal4mac

boo-hoo wrote: »

My Dentist recommended I went to the Hygienist which I did. It cost me £40 for 10 minutes. My Dentist no longer does a scale and polish, which I know is included in Band 1 NHS costs. He still says I should see the Hygienist

That looks like a bargain compared to my practice! (Dentist refers to hygienist at £64).

I've looked at other practices and around £40 seems to be the cheapest going rate.

Just talked to an NHS dental hospital receptionist who has this kind of deal - she pays the NHS Scale 1 for an exam and £37 for the private, serious scale & polish with the hygienist, and seems very happy with that. (She said she gets a good 40 minutes with the hygienist, so ten minutes sounds a bit skimpy... some practices quote the length of time with the hygienist... I saw £37 quid for half an hour advertised in one dentists' window... demand half an hour, ask lots of questions...)

Ask your dentist if you have a clinical need for a scale and polish at all. If he says, "Yes", than ask him why it isn't available on Scale 1 NHS.

If he says you need more than basic scale and polish, and would need to pay at scale 2, then you might just have to accept that. (He might be telling the truth. Do you trust him in general?)

If you accept paying for Scale 2, you might as well pay the £40 as it works out at about the same price.

justme111

I must say when I read malmac posts I think public like this deserves what they get with all misfortunes of NHS dentistry. I hope he will not find a dentist who will provide him with periodontal treatment, oral hygiene education etc for band 2 charge of £51.30 . It would mean 4 appointments (exam , 2 root surface debridements and one review ) , ie about 2 hours. Then that dentist would be meant to repeat it 3 monthly or so for as long as this charming poster exhibits signs of periodontal disease. So 2 hours of highly expensive equipment, endless compliance payments and highly trained individual for £ 51.30. And so on a few times a year forever. I wonder why your sh.t detector does not see where is it coming from and instead of department of health turns on to dentists.
Looking forwards to the next chapter of malmac's war with dentists.
Ah well one can lead the horse to water but can not make it drink.

mal4mac

So you want to destroy the NHS justme111? Can't bear to see poor people getting good treatment while you bask in your private dentist's chair? If you get cancer will you pay for the treatment?

justme111

I would prefer the NHS spends money on cancer care instead of your gum issues. You understandably prefer it other way round as at the moment you have dental issues instead of cancer - how considerate of you.
Re me " basking in private dental chair " - would be far more useful for society and NHS then you demanding it puts right your years of neglect instead of paying for someone's cancer treatment.
It is due to people like you who do not care about anything but getting the most from the system that system does not cope.

mal4mac

If it was a case of either/or then I'd agree; treat the cancer sufferer, and call me gummy.

But it isn't that way, or shouldn't be.

Coming from a working class background, I did tend to eat too many sweets as a child, which set me up for the problems I have now. In adult life I did try hard to maintain dental health - not taking sugar in coffee and tea, stopped drinking coke, brushed strictly to guidelines, started to floss, visited the dentist twice a year... The one big mistake I made was getting too angry about "gaming" four years ago, when dentists stopped doing scale and polish, and I gave up going to the dentist at all. For several years all they had done was check my teeth and say, "all fine" and do a quick "scale and polish".

I really resented paying £20 for a five minute check up and a declaration of "all fine", and then gamed to attend the hygienist.

Of course in those four years some nasty decay processes were going on beneath two of my childhood fillings, and now it's bye bye to two teeth. Now for one mistake in an adult life of trying for good hygiene you'd ban me from the NHS?!

I'm happy paying taxes to help fix the teeth of the chap who posted recently about not attending for ten years, and who needs six extractions and two crowns, and think he should probably get it under one scale 2 payment. I am even happier that you are paying taxes to do the same justme111

We are all human, we all make mistakes, let us all help each other to get over those mistakes without "gaming" or snide comments.

P.S. I don't aim to "get the most from the system" I simply aim to get what the system is supposed to provide, according to its own guidelines.

Undervalued

justme111 wrote: »

I would prefer the NHS spends money on cancer care instead of your gum issues. You understandably prefer it other way round as at the moment you have dental issues instead of cancer - how considerate of you.
Re me " basking in private dental chair " - would be far more useful for society and NHS then you demanding it puts right your years of neglect instead of paying for someone's cancer treatment.

Which could of course be just as much a result of years of neglect as Malc's teeth!

Why not extend your argument and only provide health care to those who have taken every possible step to protect their health?

Dodgy diet, no fruit and veg - sorry mate, no cancer treatment for you.

Injured at work? Sorry, no treatment unless you can prove you followed every bit of H&S advice to the letter!

Where do you draw the line?

brook2jack

This is an interesting question, where do you draw the line?
In my area certain cancer treatments are not funded by the NHS as they are in other areas.

However we also have complaints because there are no nhs specialist endodontists .

As treatment in any specialist unit is expensive you would be talking a minimum spend of £400 by the NHS for specialist endodontics , for one tooth plus the contribution to a crown afterwards.

Except for certain very special circumstances surely this sort of expenditure by the NHS on saving one tooth is unsustainable?

This is why many dentists argue for a core service of simple treatments that provide health benefits with everything else paid for privately.

Undervalued

brook2jack wrote: »

This is an interesting question, where do you draw the line?
In my area certain cancer treatments are not funded by the NHS as they are in other areas.

However we also have complaints because there are no nhs specialist endodontists .

As treatment in any specialist unit is expensive you would be talking a minimum spend of £400 by the NHS for specialist endodontics , for one tooth plus the contribution to a crown afterwards.

Except for certain very special circumstances surely this sort of expenditure by the NHS on saving one tooth is unsustainable?

This is why many dentists argue for a core service of simple treatments that provide health benefits with everything else paid for privately.

Indeed although I suspect everybody's idea of "very special circumstances" will be different.

Frankly I think the whole of the NHS is unsustainable but it would be political suicide for any party to actually admit that.

An NHS consultant I know socially said to me there ought to be a big sign up in every hospital saying "You are all going to die of something but if you are nice to us and pay lots of tax maybe we can put it off for a bit"! Ultimately people have to decide how much money they are willing to plough in to a system that, on average, extends life by a few years thereby creating a bigger burden on national resources.

Of course, when it is your own nearest and dearest most people want everything possible done regardless of cost. However when they are considering how much tax they should be forced to pay, seemingly for other people's benefit, then the picture looks rather different.

The costs involved come clearly into focus for anybody who has had a pet that needs specialist treatment beyond the capabilities of a high street vet's practice. Given a wealthy owner or comprehensive insurance pretty much anything is possible. Without however........

mal4mac

Undervalued wrote: »

Frankly I think the whole of the NHS is unsustainable but it would be political suicide for any party to actually admit that.

How do you come to that conclusion? I wouldn't vote for any politician who suggested this

Ultimately people have to decide how much money they are willing to plough in to a system that, on average, extends life by a few years thereby creating a bigger burden on national resources.

I glanced at some figures recently and Britain was spending quite a low amount of GDP on health (9%) compared to Germany and France (about 12%) and USA (17%!) I'd vote for any politician who suggested taxing the better off (including myself!) until we reach 17%. Then root canals, implants, and the latest US cancer treatments, might not be out of the question on the NHS, and we could have "best clinical options" for all. We might also be able to afford more research.

Undervalued

mal4mac wrote: »

I glanced at some figures recently and Britain was spending quite a low amount of GDP on health (9%) compared to Germany and France (about 12%) and USA (17%!) I'd vote for any politician who suggested taxing the better off (including myself!) until we reach 17%. Then root canals, implants, and the latest US cancer treatments, might not be out of the question on the NHS, and we could have "best clinical options" for all. We might also be able to afford more research.

The USA is a completely different system but it does perhaps give a better idea of true cost. Remember 17% is an average so a lot of people are actually paying vastly more than that. Certainly some Americans I worked with a few years ago spent a higher percentage of their salary than that on health insurance. OK, their taxes were lower so it is hard to draw a direct comparison.

France and Germany are closer to our system and, according to your figures, are spending 33% more.

I somehow doubt that any UK politician of any party will actually have the courage to say "vote for me and I will put your taxes up by enough to give the NHS 33% more funding".

Rightly or wrongly, if they did I wouldn't put a fiver on their party's chances of being elected if you offered me odds of 1000 to 1.