Only a four and a half month wait to see your doctor.

Norlamand

Procrastinator Rex
Joined
Apr 11, 2003
Messages
2,154
Location
Occupied Mexico
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4097055.stm

NHS waiting list purge promised
Scotland's health minister has set out ambitious targets to cut waiting times for hospital treatment.
Andy Kerr told the Scottish Parliament that greater use will be made of the private sector in diagnosing and treating NHS patients.

Mr Kerr said that by 2007 no-one will wait more than 18 weeks for an outpatient appointment, and then no more than 18 weeks for treatment.

But the targets fall short of what has been promised to patients in England.

The NHS already makes limited use of spare capacity in the private sector but Scotland's new health minister wants to go further.

'Good progress'

Mr Kerr has already held talks with six private healthcare providers but has yet to say how much of the NHS backlog he wants to contract out.

The minister said NHS patients would witness "significant change" over the next three years on waiting lists.

"Not so long ago, patients were waiting up to 18 months for inpatient/day case treatment," he said.

"We cut that down to 12 months, now nine, and will reduce it to six months by the end of the year.


"For all procedures by the end of 2007 no one will wait more than 18 weeks from GP referral to an outpatient appointment.

"We have made very good progress in tackling the three big killers in Scotland - cancer, heart disease and stroke - but we have to do more."

The health minister added: "The NHS does a great job for the people of Scotland and in many aspects offers patients the best service in the UK."

However, Unison Scottish organiser for health Jim Devine is angry with the proposals.

Mr Devine said: "The private sector is parasitical as it recruits qualified NHS staff without contributing to their training costs.

"Private medicine is grossly inefficient as its administration costs are three times that of the NHS and its prices per operation are more expensive."


There has obviously been no coherent view of how to tackle the problems of the NHS
Shona Robison
SNP health spokeswoman

Mr Kerr will bring forward the private sector to make use of unused wards - including the Golden Jubilee National Hospital in Clydebank and provide patients with evening and weekend appointments.
Another suggestion is the development of mobile diagnostic and treatment centres provided through contracts with the private sector, to free up more capacity in hospitals.

Scottish National Party health spokeswoman Shona Robison said any new measures, such as the diagnostic treatment centres, should be introduced in the NHS rather than privately.

She said the Scottish Executive was giving up on the health service after failing to improve workforce planning, capacity or waiting times.

"It seems to me a desperate measure to turn round and say private measures will be a panacea to all our problems," she said.

Playing 'catch-up'

"There has obviously been no coherent view of how to tackle the problems of the NHS."

And Ms Robison said using the private sector could only damage the NHS by reducing capacity and poaching staff.

Scottish Socialist Party health spokeswoman Carolyn Leckie added: "Instead of contraction and contracting out, Scotland's NHS needs an expansion of capacity.

"The Labour Party in Scotland is writing the obituary of the NHS."

Scottish Conservative health spokesman David Davidson said the executive was being forced to play "catch-up" in collaborating with the private sector after such measures proved successful in England.

He said: "Where there is not enough capacity in the NHS, the executive has a duty to contract out to ensure there is sufficient capacity to deal with the issue of patients waiting times."

And he questioned whether the measures would be any comfort to the people who have not received treatment over the last few years "because the executive would not consider the policies that have worked down south".

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/scotland/4097055.stm

Published: 2004/12/15 16:17:29 GMT

© BBC MMIV

Only four and a half months to be seen and no more than a total of 9 months to get treated!
 
Yom said:
It's not like it doesn't take doctors 9 months to treat you elsewhere.

Not in the US and I'd expect not in a lot of other developed countries.

http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=80266

The majority of patients, however, still wait for their care. A recent survey in 15 cities found that the average wait for a cardiology exam was 19 days. The average wait was 24 days for a dermatology appointment, and 23 days for an obstetrics-gynecology exam, according to the survey by Merritt, Hawkins & Associates, a national firm that recruits medical workers.
 
It took 4 months after identifying that there was a problem for them to operate on my brother's leg. I'm not saying that 9 months isn't a long time to wait, but the American system is far from perfect.
 
Norlamand said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4097055.stm



Only four and a half months to be seen and no more than a total of 9 months to get treated!
NHS Doctors will see you on the same day if you demand it, but NHS fails abysmally when it comes to providing actual surgery.

One possible cause has it's roots many years ago, when the Government refused to increase wages (or reduce workload) of NHS Student Doctors.

As a result, home-grown Student Doctors left the UK or sought alternative carreers.

Some years later, the NHS discovers a massive skills shortage! In an effort to fix that, the UK Government effectively imported (bulk purchase, by the crate-load) young doctors from India and any other regions from which it wouldn't be too costly.

However, the NHS only imported the minimum number of required specialists. There simply isn't enough spare capacity in the UK.

Thus, I cannot see how any politician - no matter how well intentioned - can make an realistic claim to being able to solve NHS problems.

It will be atleast a generation before doctor numbers return to workable levels.

There is no shortage of lesser-qualified General Practicioners. British people do get free healthcare, almost any day of week (Sunday can be awkward), and house calls if they need it. But the waiting lists for specialist treatment (mostly surgery) and the quality of those services are seriously lacking.
 
Norlamand said:
Only four and a half months to be seen and no more than a total of 9 months to get treated!
Well, that's the goal by 2007. And it's nine months to get treated. I guess they didn't want to set their sights too high. :crazyeye:
"Not so long ago, patients were waiting up to 18 months for inpatient/day case treatment," he said.

"We cut that down to 12 months, now nine, and will reduce it to six months by the end of the year.

"For all procedures by the end of 2007 no one will wait more than 18 weeks from GP referral to an outpatient appointment.
That article looks like a joke. Too bad it's the BBC, and as far as I know, they don't joke. I don't think I'd brag about these "improvements".

I doubt it would be this long of a wait for a private doctor, this is for a state doctor (I hope, they don't actually say so). I personally would never expect to wait more than a week or two if it weren't important, and a few hours if it were. But I'd pay for the best care wherever I were, and some people don't have that option (in the US or UK). So, maybe the nine months doesn't look so bad if you are in the US with no insurance and no options. But I think there's always free clinics around the US, as far as I can tell. This just seems bad no matter how I look at it.
 
Sanaz said:
I doubt it would be this long of a wait for a private doctor, this is for a state doctor (I hope, they don't actually say so).
Yes, it's about state specialist doctors.

1. British public get seen the same day (by a GP) if they have any medical complaint, and get instant prescriptions.

2. British public get instant emergency treatment.

3. British public have to wait 2 or more weeks to see a specialist, whom they were referred to by a GP.

4. British public have to many, many months for non-emergency surgery.

The above is free healthcare which caters for the entire population and visitors.
 
Sanaz said:
I doubt it would be this long of a wait for a private doctor, this is for a state doctor (I hope, they don't actually say so).
Outpatient appointments are those things you go to hospital to have done that you don't have to stay in for. I had an X-ray recently, and had that in a few days.
In patient treatment is obviously things you have to stay in hospital for.

Actually getting an appointment for a local doctor (to get medicine for a chest imfection say) can take up to a couple of weeks, but usually less. As has been said before, you can get them the same day if needed. But they won't be too happy if you call them out for a mild headache.
 
Norlamand said:
Not in the US and I'd expect not in a lot of other developed countries.
True, but we have other issues in the US. Like the fact that we ration health care by income, or that we have parallel private and public bureacracies that suck up a lot of our health care spending and doing the same thing in duplicate.

My dad practiced medicine in the US from the early '60s to the mid '90s. By his accounts towards the end of his career HMOs made it more difficult to give people proper care all the time while fears of malpractice lawsuits led to a lot of expensive and unnecessary testing due to "defensive medicine". The lack of standardized forms that were acceptable to insurance companies, state and federal oversight bodies was his other major pet peeve.
 
One thing that should always be kept in mind when comparing Healthcare systems is how much is spent on them.

Most of the problems with the NHS are due to comparitively low funding. In Germany for instance they spend $2,748 per capita on Health whereas for the UK it is only $1,764.

For the record the figure for the USA is an enormous $4,631 per person which could explain why US healthcare is pretty good. If you increased the NHS budget by the 250% needed to match the american figure I doubt it would compare poorly ;)
 
Looks like Norlamand pulled a zulu.

The NHS has a lot of problems, the major one being waiting times for operations. In terms of major operations, waiting times have been reduced significantly. But in this pursuit, many other aspects of Health care have been ignored, such as minor operations, which this article highlights.

Increased privatisation will further exacerbate existing problems. It may or may not improve waiting times, but it will certainly reduce the overall efficiency of the NHS. The government knows this, but is ignoring it. It wants to pass the buck, to wash it's hands of the NHS and its problems, and blame the private companies for the problems instead of blaming itself for mismanagement and underfunding.

If you think Labour is messing it up, the Conservatives are even worse. They proposed to use PUBLIC money to subsidise operations carried out in the private sector!
 
stormbind said:
Yes, it's about state specialist doctors.

1. British public get seen the same day (by a GP) if they have any medical complaint, and get instant prescriptions.
When we were there, we had to make an appointment to see a doctor for things like a heavy flu, and sometimes couldn't get to see the doctor for 3 days.

The above is free healthcare which caters for the entire population and visitors.
I actually think this is a bad thing for two reasons:

1.) Studies have shown that people get more benefit from health treatment that they have paid for. The same psychology as to why people think more expensive products are better. I'm not suggesting high fees, but a nominal GBP 5 / visit would be a good idea. It would also discourage the people who make an appointment, don't turn up and don't bother to cancel it.

2.) Free health-care means time wasters. We only go to the doctor when we are really, really sick. The unfortunately reality (told to us by a doctor in the UK) is that there are a lot of people who go to the doctor for such reasons as "loneliness".
 
Mise said:
If you think Labour is messing it up, the Conservatives are even worse. They proposed to use PUBLIC money to subsidise operations carried out in the private sector!
You mean...they actually dared suggest that we INCREASE the sizes of the private plots of Russian peasants, er, workers' farms? Madmen!! That will NEVER work!!

Er...wait a minute...come to think of it... :mischief:
 
FearlessLeader2 said:
You mean...they actually dared suggest that we INCREASE the sizes of the private plots of Russian peasants, er, workers' farms? Madmen!! That will NEVER work!!

Er...wait a minute...come to think of it... :mischief:
I'm quite sure what I mean, I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I'm fairly sure they're not the same thing.

In the UK, there are two ways of having an operation. Either you have it done on the NHS (which is free), or you have it done privately (i.e. use a private sector hospital, which costs a lot of money). Currently, there are lots of people with private health insurance who have operations done privately. The Tories propose that we encourage people who would normally have an operation done on the NHS to have it done privately by subsidising their expenses with whatever the cost of the operation would have cost on the NHS. I.e. if an operation costs £1200 privately, and would cost the NHS £800 to do, the government gives the patient £800 to have it done privately, so the patient pays £400 instead of £1200, and the burden on the NHS is reduced.

Sounds good right? Wrong. Like I said before, lots of people already have private health insurance, and they already use private hospitals with their own money. These people would normally not get any money from the government, and are perfectly willing to pay the full £1200. But under the Tory policy, the NHS would have to fork out £800 every time one of these people has an operation, which they wouldn't have done otherwise. So the Tory policy would cost an estimated £800million in deadweight expenses per year just to fund those people who ALREADY HAVE private health insurance.

That's £800million that ISN'T being used to pay for more doctors, nurses, hospital beds, operations, medicines and facilities.

In addition, it will create a heavily tiered health care system, in which the poor are forced to utilise the now severely underfunded Nationalised health service, and the upper middle classes enjoy cheap private health care. But that's what the Tories are betting on -- they want to prove that the NHS is a waste of resources, so they can dismantly it. They put out these rediculous policies and sugar coat them, not telling us the whole story, and have people who simply haven't thought it through vote for them. All the while, they will waste £800million a year on deadweight inefficiency expenses.

The Conservative policy simply doesn't add up.
 
It does when most of their support comes from rick folk.
 
All I can say is thank goodness I'm in a health care system where I have to pay for it as I never wait like that. Go US. Of course, some folks don't have any. I lived like that for 3 years, but you can still get emergency treatment for free as I did once while uninsured.
 
The Tories only care about getting into power, they don't care about how their so called 'policies' would actually affect the British people. Seems like Tory policy is make the rich richer and sod the rest. Under their system rich people would get good healthcare, the rest of us would just die.
 
Scuffer said:
I had an X-ray recently, and had that in a few days.
Same for me. I think the X-Ray operators are less experienced doctors.
 
ainwood said:
When we were there, we had to make an appointment to see a doctor for things like a heavy flu, and sometimes couldn't get to see the doctor for 3 days.
No offense, but why see a doctor about a flu? He's only going to tell you to rest and suck some Strepsils :p

On the other hand, had you gone to see him before catching the flu, you could have enjoyed a free flu-jab and avoided the need for Strepsils :)
 
stormbind said:
Same for me. I think the X-Ray operators are less experienced doctors.

Your dentist can give you an X-Ray, so yeah, you're probably right.
 
Top Bottom