Woo Hoo! You can see your MD within 12 months!

[Norlamand]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4116173.stm

NHS waiting time target is cut
Hospital waiting times for patients in Wales are to be cut, but not to the same extent as those in England.
Welsh Health Minister Jane Hutt said no patient would wait more than 12 months for an outpatient appointment by March 2006, against a current target of 18 months.

But she said the target for an inpatient appointment would remain at 12 months for March 2006.

The announcement came as new monthly waiting figures showed a drop.

This current inpatient target was set when the assembly government extended its second offer guarantee scheme, which gives patients the option of having their treatment outside Wales.


Capacity must be built into the system... to ensure that Welsh patients don't receive a worse service than patients over the border
Dr Richard Lewis, BMA

Details about funding to resource the new targets are expected in the New Year.

In England, the current target for inpatients - seeing a consultant to having an operation - is six months.

Dr Richard Lewis, Welsh secretary of the British Medical Association (BMA), welcomed the new targets "to make further and faster progress on waiting lists".

"However, much remains to be done on waiting lists and waiting times because Wales still lags a long way behind England," he said.

"Capacity must be built into the system with sustained investment to ensure that Welsh patients don't receive a worse service than patients over the border."

Health analyst Tony Beddow, from the Welsh Institute for Health and Social Care, called the new targets "reasonably impressive".

'Turning the corner'

On Wednesday, Ms Hutt also announced £264m for health services will be spent reducing waiting times, improving key areas and modernising staff pay structures in Wales.


We are turning the corner on long waits in Wales
Jane Hutt

Ms Hutt said major achievements had been made in cutting "unacceptably long waits for treatment over the past year".
"We are turning the corner on long waits in Wales. Now we need to see those reductions in long waiters being improved again," she said.

She added the targets intended to ensure no-one waits more than a year for treatment or to see a consultant.

"But let us not forget two thirds of those waiting for treatment now are waiting less than six months, and these targets affect the small minority of patients in Wales that are waiting far too long."

Rhodri Glyn Thomas, Plaid Cymru health spokesman said: "It's exactly the same target she set in 1999, with the qualification that it's dependent on a second offer. It's a failed target, from a failed minister..with a failed policy."

For the Welsh Liberal Democrats, Kirsty Williams called the new target "hugely unambitious".

"It leaves patients in Wales still waiting two years before they're treated."

Conservative health spokesman Jonathan Morgan said: "We're spending more money but waiting lists have gone through the roof.

"The Audit Commission has said that the money is not being spent efficiently or effectively, and that's quite a criticism."

Meanwhile, the latest monthly waiting list figures showed the total number of people waiting more than 18 months as an inpatient in Wales has fallen by 9.8%.

Statistics to the end of November showed a decline since October from 785 to 708.

The number waiting over 12 months also fell from 7,613 to 6,630, or 12.9%.

Ms Hutt said they were "excellent figures".

There are 305,775 people on a waiting list of some kind, down from 311,764 last month.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4116173.stm

Published: 2004/12/22 12:40:35 GMT

© BBC MMIV

 

[Plexus]

Just as there as failings with the American system, people must recognize the problems with nationalized health care.

 

[aneeshm]

I thank god they my country's flirtation with socialism did not proceed far enough for us to take the fatal step of nationalising medicine . Woo Hoo ! I only have to wait for a few hours to see my MD . I love freedom . . . . . . Yay to a capitalist medical system !

 

[classical_hero]

I only have to wait a few days , If he is busy, or a few hours, if not. We have a socalistic sytle of health care and it is working fine in Australia.

 

[Hundegesicht]

If I want to see my MD I... um... get in my car. It usually only takes an hour or so with both driving times and waiting room. If I don't want to wait the hour, I call him the day before. And the entire thing costs me...

$10. My insurance pays for the rest. There are some days I really, really enjoy living in the USA. I couldn't even imagine having to wait 6 months...

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Norlmand put up a very misleading heading and you guys haven’t actually read the report.
If I want to see my doctor I ring up and will see him or one of his colleagues the next day. The worst I have ever had to wait was the day after that. And this is ‘free’. If I need anything quicker we can always go down to the hospital and they will see us within a few hours (my only experience of this I was seen immediately).

What the report is referring to is the max. wait for seeing a specialist. The wait is too still too long but it is coming down. Once again if it is an emergency, they will see us straight away.

 

[Hotpoint]

As I usually point out when people compare the US and UK healthcare systems the main reason for any difference in service is that the United States spends two and a half times more on healthcare per capita than the United Kingdom ($4,631 per person compared with $1,764).

There are very few problems with the National Health Service (NHS) that could not be cured by increasing its budget by 250%. Conversely imagine the state of healthcare in America if you reduced spending to British levels.

 

[classical_hero]

As I usually point out when people compare the US and UK healthcare systems the main reason for any difference in service is that the United States spends two and a half times more on healthcare per capita than the United Kingdom ($4,631 per person compared with $1,764).

There are very few problems with the National Health Service (NHS) that could not be cured by increasing its budget by 250%. Conversely imagine the state of healthcare in American if you reduced spending to British levels.

The amount of money spent per capita does not mean anything because you could be spending the money in all the wrong areas and still have an awful heathcare system.

 

[Mise]

As I usually point out when people compare the US and UK healthcare systems the main reason for any difference in service is that the United States spends two and a half times more on healthcare per capita than the United Kingdom ($4,631 per person compared with $1,764).

There are very few problems with the National Health Service (NHS) that could not be cured by increasing its budget by 250%. Conversely imagine the state of healthcare in American if you reduced spending to British levels.

Exactly, it's simply a matter of money. "Mismanagement" is merely a distraction from the real issue. There's a lot of pressure on doctors to meet performance targets, which is to the detrement of the provision of primary care, and this simply isn't helping anything. Further privatisation and the creation of "competition" in the NHS will merely exacerbate existing problems. Just another reason to vote against the Tories (and Labour, to a lesser extent).

Norlmand put up a very misleading heading and you guys haven’t actually read the report.
If I want to see my doctor I ring up and will see him or one of his colleagues the next day. The worst I have ever had to wait was the day after that. And this is ‘free’. If I need anything quicker we can always go down to the hospital and they will see us within a few hours (my only experience of this I was seen immediately).

What the report is referring to is the max. wait for seeing a specialist. The wait is too still too long but it is coming down. Once again if it is an emergency, they will see us straight away.

That too. Well said. They're also specifically talking about Wales, not the UK as a whole. Wales's population is around 3 million. It's also a less prosperous part of the country. I bet if you took the same type of cross section in ANY country, you'd find surprising results.

Incidentally, the article by and large praises the NHS, and the progress made. The article says that although much has already been done, much more needs to be done to ensure the best possible health care service. It's not criticising the government, and it makes no comparisons to any other country, so unless you're a leading expert in the field, or you have more than pure anecdotes, I suggest you shut up and read the article, not just the title.

@hundegeswhateveryournameis: that's exactly what I do, except I don't need $10 and insurance. It's free, and it's exactly the same.

 

[Mise]

The amount of money spent per capita does not mean anything because you could be spending the money in all the wrong areas and still have an awful heathcare system.

That's his point: the US privatised health care system is costing the average American more money, and is delivering a service of widely varying quality, because the money is going to the wrong places.

 

[Hotpoint]

The amount of money spent per capita does not mean anything because you could be spending the money in all the wrong areas and still have an awful heathcare system.

True but if you spend a vast amount of money you only need a relatively small percentage actually directed in the right direction to have a decent healthcare system... as long as you aren't comparing for efficiency but rather just results.

If the US spends over twice as much per person on healthcare it only need be as half as efficient and it will still have a better standard of service than the NHS. That's the point really, the system used in the US is terribly expensive and only looks good if you don't want to consider how much it costs.

 

[phoenix_night]

I think this counter-zulu tactic of yours is a bit of a waste, Norlamand. People in the UK like to criticise the government. It's a favourite past-time.

It's not as if the failings of the NHS qualify as news anyway...

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Ban Norlamand for being a ****ing wanker, that is my opinion.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[storealex]

Backfire... bang

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Backfire... bang

At least it is an opinion, something that Norlamand fails to provide in all his copy&paste antics.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Moderator Action: If people can't focus on the topic rather than the poster, then actions will be taken. If you don't want to post on the topic, then don't post in the thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Moderator Action: Norlamand, you will be expected to participate in such discussions, not just copy/paste an article and leave it at that. That is the same for anyone who decides to try and copy/paste articles but not be part of the discussion.