Britain's health service makes it the only one of 11 leading industrialised nations where wealth does not determine access to care – providing the most widely accessible treatments at low cost among rich nations, a study has found.
The survey, by US health thinktank the Commonwealth Fund, showed that while a third of American adults "went without recommended care, did not see a doctor when sick, or failed to fill prescriptions because of costs", this figure was only 6% in the UK and 5% in Holland.
In all the countries surveyed except Britain, wealth was a significant factor in access to health, with patients earning less than the national average more likely to report trouble with medical bills and problems getting care because of cost.
The survey, of 19,700 patients in 11 nations, found "substantial differences" among countries on access to care when sick, access after hours, and waiting times for specialised care.
About 70% of British patients reported same- or next-day access to doctors when sick, less than the 93% of Swiss adults reporting rapid access. In contrast, however, only 57% of adults in Sweden and the US, and less than half in Canada and Norway, were seen this quickly.
The NHS was also extremely cost-effective, with spending on health per person almost the lowest in the survey. A person in the UK paid $1,500 less than one in Switzerland and less than half the $7,538 paid by every American for healthcare. Only New Zealand, where one in seven said they skipped hospital visits because of cost, spent less per head.
The report was particularly damning about the US, where it found patients "are far more likely than those in 10 other industrialised nations to go without healthcare because of costs".
Nigel Edwards, acting chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said the report was a "good result for the UK. The issue in many other nations is that you buy insurance to cover for the price of expensive drugs. Or that you need co-payments on hospital treatments…"
Edwards said there were issues with NHS care. "I think if you look at why we are not able to treat patients out of hospital well for, say, diabetes, or why we have high rates of heart disease, or look at cancer survival rates, it would be a different story. But the question is whether the government's plans for the NHS help this."
A government spokesperson said: "The UK lags behind many international healthcare systems on survival rates – for example, for diseases such as cancer or stroke – and the NHS must reform in order to achieve better outcomes."
Meanwhile a government-commissioned report yesterday suggested that national or regional call centres could handle GP appointments under a "radical" change to the system that would save millions. The report, by the Foundation Trust Network, said streamlining "back office" functions in the NHS and "sharing" services would save £600m a year.
However the Department of Health said there were no plans for call centres.
Slightly off-topic, and sorry for complaining, but mental health is bottom of the NHS list, and, it would appear, personality disorders are bottom of the mental health list. Yet another service in my area under threat of closure - always the ones I need.
And it's really difficult to get a GP appointment around here. /rant.
Apart from that, the NHS is awesome and my mum got really good care for her cancer.
^But what is good, is thay with the NHS cuts, they are actually putting more into MH services, rather than cutting the funding down further. Which is good.
^But what is good, is thay with the NHS cuts, they are actually putting more into MH services, rather than cutting the funding down further. Which is good.
If only that were true though. I know services round here are being scaled back and there was an article yesterday about how IAPT services are being cut, despite the fact it was mentioned specifically in the budget as an area for increased spendig. http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.as...de=4127803&c=2
^But what is good, is thay with the NHS cuts, they are actually putting more into MH services, rather than cutting the funding down further. Which is good.
I don't think that can be true, loads of MH services are being scaled back.
'Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you.'
['There is only one thing we say to death. Not today'.']
'We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell.’ – Oscar Wilde
‘It’s hard to dance with the devil on your back.’ Sydney Carter
That's great and all, but where was the survey carried out [which part of Britain]? What aspects did they look at?
From a service user perspective I would totally disagree. I wonder if they focused on care for heart patients, cancer and stroke victims. I very much doubt they ever looked at care for PDs, because if they had, they'd have realised more than half the county's in the UK have NO service at all, no specialisms or any person to refer to for even advice, and wouldn't that contradict their findings a little bit? [I use that as one example, but I do know of more].
^But what is good, is thay with the NHS cuts, they are actually putting more into MH services, rather than cutting the funding down further. Which is good.
They've closed down the only adult mental health service in our area due to cuts, which is highly amusing so when I reach 18 I'm just gunna be like. YAY YOU SUCK IM GOING TO DIE. Like I am now.
But yes. I really do love the NHS. Apart from the mental health side. It is a wonderful thing.
That's great and all, but where was the survey carried out [which part of Britain]? What aspects did they look at?
From a service user perspective I would totally disagree. I wonder if they focused on care for heart patients, cancer and stroke victims. I very much doubt they ever looked at care for PDs, because if they had, they'd have realised more than half the county's in the UK have NO service at all, no specialisms or any person to refer to for even advice, and wouldn't that contradict their findings a little bit? [I use that as one example, but I do know of more].
You can find out the details of the survey here. Thing is, whilst I appreciate what you're saying, PDs make up such a small % of GP services/treatments/etc., I'd hardly say that there'd be enough data to contradict the findings. If you had 1 person with a PD out of a group of 100 (and even that is a pretty generous average), even if they reported shocking services it wouldn't screw with the statistics that much.
If somebody did specific research into 'accessibility to mental health services', I've no doubt the results would be different... But this is just general access to services, of which PDs make up a pretty small percentage of the population.
Last edited by Dreaming. : 23-11-2010 at 07:43 PM.
Then wear the gold hat, if that will move her;
If you can bounce high, bounce for her too,
Till she cry "Lover, gold-hatted, high-bouncing lover,
I must have you!"
Thomas Parke D’Invilliers
You can find out the details of the survey here. Thing is, whilst I appreciate what you're saying, PDs make up such a small % of GP services/treatments/etc., I'd hardly say that there'd be enough data to contradict the findings. If you had 1 person with a PD out of a group of 100 (and even that is a pretty generous average), even if they reported shocking services it wouldn't screw with the statistics that much.
If somebody did specific research into 'accessibility to mental health services', I've no doubt the results would be different... But this is just general access to services, of which PDs make up a pretty small percentage of the population.
Fair do's but if that makes no sense, what about dietician support or botox for hyperhidrosis, or long acting versions of medications that have been prescribed in other counties, yet still on the NHS blacklist in another county.
I love the NHS, I really do, but so much varies county to county that one survey cannot give summarised results to such a huge organisation that does so many different things.
The following content has been hidden - Reason : Off topic, I do not wish to include this in the same debate, for anyone who wants to comment or has an interest, I can make a new thread.
I know this is off topic and I considered making a thread previously about it, but, some medications are so cheap for example 16p for 16 paracetamol tablets yet the NHS is charge £13.50ish for ONE item on a prescription whatever the cost. And a paying customer would pay £7.20 for one item on prescription though a lot of people get free prescriptions, the NHS is still charged the same [£13.50 by the pharmacy].
GPs in my area have stopped supplying anti-histamines on prescription [when used for hayfever and general allergies] because of the low cost to an individual, yet high cost to the NHS for very little product. WHY cant they do this for paracetamol, ibuprofen, aspirin and other very very cheap items.
Pharmacies make an absolute mint out of the NHS and I despise this considering how much the NHS brings their income in for them, they still refuse to do things like daily dispensing because they are technically 'allowed' to charge per dispense and therefore per item, per day, so one tablet, however cheap the individual tablet is will cost the NHS £13.50.
I have found 9/10 pharmacies in the town I live will not daily dispense [it IS legal in dispensary laws as long as either the date or the day is made clear on the prescription when making instructions on split dispensing (much like methadone dispensing)]. The reason being they are SO keen to make money, insane unnecessary amounts of money, out of the NHS and so far the NHS appears to be allowing it by continuing to prescribe the low cost items under the current one equal cost system [which I do agree with].
I don't know, but it would make sense, as new drugs with a patent will cost the NHS more [I would imagine] to add to their list of medications NHS prescriber's can give, and the cost to make them is often nowhere near the cost they charge when they release a new version [such as long acting] or a completely new product.
But all I say there is a guess to be honest. I just know that a few years ago, my partners consultant knew there was a new version of seroquel [long acting XL] but he had to ask for special permission to prescribe as it was currently on our county's black list of medications the NHS would prescribe. He was told he couldn't offer it and we just had to wait the few months till our county had decided it would start offering it, even though we knew of other patients in other parts of the UK who were on it via NHS prescriptions. It was frustrating because she had been on all the other anti-psychotics and had either no positive effect or side effects that required her to stop taking it.
I know this is off topic and I considered making a thread previously about it, but, some medications are so cheap for example 16p for 16 paracetamol tablets yet the NHS is charge £13.50ish for ONE item on a prescription whatever the cost. And a paying customer would pay £7.20 for one item on prescription though a lot of people get free prescriptions, the NHS is still charged the same [£13.50 by the pharmacy].
are those otc or by script?
its acetaminophen
Last edited by Freedom Fighter : 24-11-2010 at 09:00 PM.
Then wear the gold hat, if that will move her;
If you can bounce high, bounce for her too,
Till she cry "Lover, gold-hatted, high-bouncing lover,
I must have you!"
Thomas Parke D’Invilliers
there are somewhere between $15-$30 for a normal packet of tablets. here
Then wear the gold hat, if that will move her;
If you can bounce high, bounce for her too,
Till she cry "Lover, gold-hatted, high-bouncing lover,
I must have you!"
Thomas Parke D’Invilliers
