How to solve the NHS funding crisis

Red-Squirrel_2

teddysmum wrote: »

Who has to put right private companies' errors and who do the private hospitals turn to when they can't cope with a case ?

Exactly. :cool:

antrobus

Pennywise wrote: »

Personally, I think it's time to ditch the current GP system and remodel the GP surgeries. They've become too self-serving. We've come a long way from the days when the GP and district nurse did virtually everything, including delivery of babies, operations, attending accidents, etc. The rest of the NHS has moved on, with lots of different departments specialising in particular treatments/conditions, yet still have to be accessed via the GP surgery. Why?

Triage.

Pennywise wrote: »

...
We've been trying to solve my daughter's ingrown toe nail since last summer, with numerous appointments to the GP and practice nurse, none of which improved her condition. ...

There are good GPs and there are not so good GPs.

If the NHS thinks you might die, it will pull out all the stops to keep you alive. Otherwise, you are on a waiting list.

Pennywise wrote: »

...I think we need a different route to access specialist departments. If I need a hearing aid, why not just let me make an initial appointment directly with the audiology dept? If my child has a toe problem, why not let me make a direct appt with podiatry? It's a nonsense to insist on going through GPs these days. It's all a throwback from decades ago when GP's did more treatments themselves.

I disagree,

A&E departments are already often overwhelmed by twonks turning up with a bad headache. I don't want the same thing happening to the rest of the NHS.

westernpromise

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Exactly. :cool:

The NHS, which the private sector's patients have paid for as well as their private care.

Maybe you'd rather all private patients just went straight to the NHS? That would improve it no end.

Comms69

caronoel wrote: »

Stop the free at point of use nonsense.

Charge everyone £10 for each hospital or GP visit. You would soon see demand drop off as few timewasters would want to pay up and funding would increase dramatically overnight

It works in well funded healthcare systems like the Nordics. It could work here

6 pages worth of reading, so someone may have said this already.


The poorest have the worst health outcomes. By charging them to attend, you would delay their treatment, which in the long term would cost the NHS more to fix.


It's like waiting to fix the chip on your windscreen until it cracks....

Pennywise

teddysmum wrote: »

Who has to put right private companies' errors and who do the private hospitals turn to when they can't cope with a case ?

No worse than doctors and consultants doing private work using NHS resources and not paying the NHS a share of their private profits.

Pennywise

antrobus wrote: »

A&E departments are already often overwhelmed by twonks turning up with a bad headache. I don't want the same thing happening to the rest of the NHS.

There are already NHS services which you can access without going via a GP, i.e. dentistry, opticians, pharmacy, etc. They're not overwhelmed with "twonks" despite the fact that Joe Public can make direct contact. I think the A&E issue is because of the nature of GP services, i.e. long waiting times, poor diagnosis, etc. Give people more routes to access for treatment and the vast majority will respect and not abuse it. You'll always get your minority of "twonks" but the answer is to find direct ways of dealing with them, not "punish" everyone else.

antrobus

Pennywise wrote: »

There are already NHS services which you can access without going via a GP, i.e. dentistry, opticians, pharmacy, etc. They're not overwhelmed with "twonks" despite the fact that Joe Public can make direct contact.

NHS "dentistry, opticians, pharmacy" are delivered by private enterprise under contract, for which a contribution is often expected. Might that be the difference.

Pennywise wrote: »

...
I think the A&E issue is because of the nature of GP services, i.e. long waiting times, poor diagnosis, etc. Give people more routes to access for treatment and the vast majority will respect and not abuse it. You'll always get your minority of "twonks" but the answer is to find direct ways of dealing with them, not "punish" everyone else.

I do not share your optimistic view of human nature. If a GP believes that somebody does not have cancer, allowing them to self refer themselves to a cancer specialist in order to be told that they don't have cancer is only burning up money for no reason. And likely to increase waiting times and damage those who actually do have cancer.

And I don't think it matters how many routes there are. The NHS needs more money. Routes don't provide money.

Comms69

antrobus wrote: »

NHS "dentistry, opticians, pharmacy" are delivered by private enterprise under contract, for which a contribution is often expected. Might that be the difference.




I do not share your optimistic view of human nature. If a GP believes that somebody does not have cancer, allowing them to self refer themselves to a cancer specialist in order to be told that they don't have cancer is only burning up money for no reason. And likely to increase waiting times and damage those who actually do have cancer.

And I don't think it matters how many routes there are. The NHS needs more money. Routes don't provide money.

So are GP services (except the contribution factor)

Malthusian

Comms69 wrote: »

The poorest have the worst health outcomes.

This will always be the case regardless of how much money you shovel into the NHS.

How would you create a system in which people got unhealthier the more money they had? Spray virulent bacteria around Waitrose? Punishment beatings for anyone above the higher rate tax threshold?

By charging them to attend, you would delay their treatment, which in the long term would cost the NHS more to fix.

Everyone in this country, including the poor, can afford £10 for a GP appointment.

Personally however I don't agree with caronoel's system - I agree there should be a charge for seeing the doctor, just as there's a charge to see your car mechanic or accountant, but IMO it should be higher, and those on benefits should be exempted.

POPPYOSCAR

antrobus wrote: »

NHS "dentistry, opticians, pharmacy" are delivered by private enterprise under contract, for which a contribution is often expected. Might that be the difference.




I do not share your optimistic view of human nature. If a GP believes that somebody does not have cancer, allowing them to self refer themselves to a cancer specialist in order to be told that they don't have cancer is only burning up money for no reason. And likely to increase waiting times and damage those who actually do have cancer.

And I don't think it matters how many routes there are. The NHS needs more money. Routes don't provide money.

And conversely the GP who does not believe someone has cancer and does not refer them until it is too late as happened with my 31 year old niece.