How to get treatment?

Manxman_in_exile

Despite the content of my earlier posts on this thread, I actually have a great deal of sympathy for purplepixie's argument here.


I think the answer to the OP's original question is that "No - paying to see a specialist privately for an initial consultation doesn't prevent you from then going on a NHS list". That's the way the system does work, but I think there is a strong argument that it shouldn't (insofar as it enables "queue-jumping").


In my case I paid privately because my GP was extremely concerned about a potentially very serious heart condition, and I wanted to try to resolve the situation ASAP. As it happens the consultant agreed that I had an abnormality, but it was of no clinical significance, required no treatment and I was perfectly fit.


However, if I had required an operation (GP had mentioned possibility of some sort of pacemaker) I'm not sure what I would have done. If it had been affordable and the NHS list was long, I might have paid privately, but otherwise I think I would have opted for the NHS. If I had done this though, I would have felt distinctly uncomfortable and (having worked in the NHS for 25 years) a bit hypocritical if I'd pushed back others on the NHS list. That would not have sat well with me.


I don't actually know how lists are organised and prioritised. In an ideal world I'd want people to be able to pay privately initially, but if they then revert back to NHS treatment then I agree with purplepixie that they should not thereby be able to jump the treatment queue.


But those are the sentiments of a 60 yr old socialist! Having worked in the NHS I don't see it happening any time soon!

thepurplepixie

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Despite the content of my earlier posts on this thread, I actually have a great deal of sympathy for purplepixie's argument here.


I think the answer to the OP's original question is that "No - paying to see a specialist privately for an initial consultation doesn't prevent you from then going on a NHS list". That's the way the system does work, but I think there is a strong argument that it shouldn't (insofar as it enables "queue-jumping").


In my case I paid privately because my GP was extremely concerned about a potentially very serious heart condition, and I wanted to try to resolve the situation ASAP. As it happens the consultant agreed that I had an abnormality, but it was of no clinical significance, required no treatment and I was perfectly fit.


However, if I had required an operation (GP had mentioned possibility of some sort of pacemaker) I'm not sure what I would have done. If it had been affordable and the NHS list was long, I might have paid privately, but otherwise I think I would have opted for the NHS. If I had done this though, I would have felt distinctly uncomfortable and (having worked in the NHS for 25 years) a bit hypocritical if I'd pushed back others on the NHS list. That would not have sat well with me.


I don't actually know how lists are organised and prioritised. In an ideal world I'd want people to be able to pay privately initially, but if they then revert back to NHS treatment then I agree with purplepixie that they should not thereby be able to jump the treatment queue.


But those are the sentiments of a 60 yr old socialist! Having worked in the NHS I don't see it happening any time soon!

I am so relieved that someone actually understands my point, so many replies not addressing the issue.

lessonlearned

Yes SDW this does seem to be the way things are done......unless of course you are going to somewhere like Harley Street - in which case it will be most likely that you will be paying privately for both your consultation and any subsequent treatment and/or testing such as mri or ct scans etc

Although even then, if the consultant did find something where treatment was realistically only available at an NHS hospital then he would transfer you to NHS care.

This is what happened with my husband.......remember he had a very rare neurological condition and although he was well covered by medical insurance (he was self employed and not eligible for any form of sick pay so we felt health insurance was a must) ultimately the only treatment options available were through the nhs. .

All his initial consultations, MRI scans, CT and PET scans etc were paid for by his health insurance. It was only when the awful truth was revealed that his consultant explained that his only chance of help was to be treated by the NHS because they had some expertise and were also doing the research, in conjunction with both Oxford and Boston (USA) universities.

He was referred to a teaching hospital who oversaw his treatment plan and who worked directly with Oxford university who prescribed unlicensed drugs as part of their research programme. The drugs were funded by the university research programme. But of course we are getting into the realm of tertiary medicine here, by no means your average NHS hospital.

His treatments and drugs went on to cost hundreds of thousands if not more. And whilst I shall be eternally grateful that they never gave up on him I do sometimes wonder if it was all worth it. Still it gave him an extra nine years.

The only thing I can say is that guinea pigs like my husband, who die anyway, do provide the opportunity for the medical and scientific community to expand their knowledge for the benefit of others in years to come.

One day there will be a cure for my husbands condition, probably in the form of some kind of stem cell treatment. And it is this which makes it all worth while. His sacrifice won’t have been in vain.

seven-day-weekend

thepurplepixie wrote: »

I am so relieved that someone actually understands my point, so many replies not addressing the issue.

I did understand what you were saying (that by paying to see a consultant and then going on the NHS list, you had jumped the queue because you only had the NHS list to wait on and not the referral list); however my point was that, regardless of peoples' morals and ethics, when the chips were down they would do what was best for their own loved ones. And I still believe that to be the case.

Manxman_in_exile

lessonlearned wrote: »

If he had had to wait 11 weeks for his NHS appt he would have died during the interim period. Absolutely no question.

lessonlearned - just to make absolutely clear I'm not being in any way critical here...


I think the bit about the 11 week wait and possible death is part of purplepixie's argument (I may be wrong though!) Someone who could not (for whatever reason) get an initial private consultation would have died waiting for the initial consultation. I think that may be part of pp's position(?). I may be wrong as having reviewed their posts they only seem to be arguing about queue jumping after the initial referral to a specialist(?).


Also, I don't think pp is complaining about people being pushed to the front of the queue on the basis of clinical need? I think we would all accept that. I think he or she is complaining about people being sort of delayed or pushed back in the queue because they've been leap-frogged by people paying privately.


Apart from those points, I like your post and would have done the same.

lessonlearned

thepurplepixie wrote: »

I am so relieved that someone actually understands my point, so many replies not addressing the issue.

I do understand your point....however I think you are wishing for the moon here. Yes in an ideal world there should be a level playing field but alas there are no utopias.

Going back to your grandchild argument for non urgent surgery......

Well if I had a grandchild who was sick then I would spend my life savings if I had to. Simple as that.

When my husband was diagnosed I would have sold our home to pay for his treatment if any treatment had been available.

Yes I appreciate the argument that not everyone has savings or assets to sell but realistically all any of us can do is what we feel is the best we can for our loved ones.

If that means paying twice.......once through NI contributions and once again from my own resources then so be it.

If you feel so passionate then maybe you should stand for government so you can effect the necessary change.

But I doubt you will succeed, the position of PM is a poisoned chalice, whichever party is in power.

Seriously You can’t just blame “the evil Tories” - the NHS has been in terminal decline for decades. All governments, of whichever colour, have starved it of cash and run it into the ground. Plus......no matter what anyone says there is a shocking amount of waste and chronic mismanagement of precious resources.

The NHS is on its knees.

thepurplepixie

lessonlearned wrote: »

I do understand your point
No I don't think you do.

Going back to your grandchild argument for non urgent surgery......

Well if I had a grandchild who was sick then I would spend my life savings if I had to. Simple as that.

Totally different argument, we are talking about people spending £150 or so to jump the queue. If you were using your life saving to pay for treatment you would be having private treatment and not jumping the queue.

When my husband was diagnosed I would have sold our home to pay for his treatment if any treatment had been available.

Again not the point, if no treatment was available you couldn't have jumped a queue.

Yes I appreciate the argument that not everyone has savings or assets to sell but realistically all any of us can do is what we feel is the best we can for our loved ones.

If that means paying twice.......once through NI contributions and once again from my own resources then so be it.

If you feel so passionate then maybe you should stand for government so you can effect the necessary change.

But I doubt you will succeed, the position of PM is a poisoned chalice, whichever party is in power.

Seriously You can’t just blame “the evil Tories” - the NHS has been in terminal decline for decades. All governments, of whichever colour, have starved it of cash and run it into the ground. Plus......no matter what anyone says there is a shocking amount of waste and chronic mismanagement of precious resources.

The NHS is on its knees.

You so don't get the point.

thepurplepixie

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

lessonlearned - just to make absolutely clear I'm not being in any way critical here...


I think the bit about the 11 week wait and possible death is part of purplepixie's argument (I may be wrong though!) Someone who could not (for whatever reason) get an initial private consultation would have died waiting for the initial consultation. I think that may be part of pp's position(?). I may be wrong as having reviewed their posts they only seem to be arguing about queue jumping after the initial referral to a specialist(?).


Also, I don't think pp is complaining about people being pushed to the front of the queue on the basis of clinical need? I think we would all accept that. I think he or she is complaining about people being sort of delayed or pushed back in the queue because they've been leap-frogged by people paying privately.


Apart from those points, I like your post and would have done the same.

Yes that is what I am complaining about.

thepurplepixie

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I did understand what you were saying (that by paying to see a consultant and then going on the NHS list, you had jumped the queue because you only had the NHS list to wait on and not the referral list); however my point was that, regardless of peoples' morals and ethics, when the chips were down they would do what was best for their own loved ones. And I still believe that to be the case.

If the chips were down I would pay for the treatment and not disadvantage other people by jumping the queue.

lessonlearned

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

lessonlearned - just to make absolutely clear I'm not being in any way critical here...


I think the bit about the 11 week wait and possible death is part of purplepixie's argument (I may be wrong though!) Someone who could not (for whatever reason) get an initial private consultation would have died waiting for the initial consultation. I think that may be part of pp's position(?). I may be wrong as having reviewed their posts they only seem to be arguing about queue jumping after the initial referral to a specialist(?).


Also, I don't think pp is complaining about people being pushed to the front of the queue on the basis of clinical need? I think we would all accept that. I think he or she is complaining about people being sort of delayed or pushed back in the queue because they've been leap-frogged by people paying privately.


Apart from those points, I like your post and would have done the same.

Thank you I know you are not being critical.

However, I think PP is seeing things as either black or white and is perhaps taking a somewhat over simplistic view. Private bad, NHS good. A bit like the famous quote from Animal Farm.

The NHS is a great socialist ideal but unfortunately it is no longer working......Did it ever work the way it was intended. I doubt it.

Yes Nye Bevan is probably spinning in his grave.......

Ultimately I guess we need some kind of private/nhs partnership. I just hope it doesn’t go the way of healthcare funding in The US, although I have a nasty feeling that is exactly what will happen.