Health Care Rationing In The UK
The future of Obamacare (as played with a British accent). Oliver Wright writes in the Independent:
Hip replacements, cataract surgery and tonsil removal are among operations now being rationed in a bid to save the NHS money.Two-thirds of health trusts in England are rationing treatments for "non-urgent" conditions as part of the drive to reduce costs in the NHS by £20bn over the next four years. One in three primary-care trusts (PCTs) has expanded the list of procedures it will restrict funding to in the past 12 months.
Examples of the rationing now being used include:
* Hip and knee replacements only being allowed where patients are in severe pain. Overweight patients will be made to lose weight before being considered for an operation.
* Cataract operations being withheld from patients until their sight problems "substantially" affect their ability to work.
* Patients with varicose veins only being operated on if they are suffering "chronic continuous pain", ulceration or bleeding.
* Tonsillectomy (removing tonsils) only to be carried out in children if they have had seven bouts of tonsillitis in the previous year.
* Grommets to improve hearing in children only being inserted in "exceptional circumstances" and after monitoring for six months.
* Funding has also been cut in some areas for IVF treatment on the NHS.
The alarming figures emerged from a survey of 111 PCTs by the health-service magazine GP, using the Freedom of Information Act.
Doctors are known to be concerned about how the new rationing is working - and how it will affect their relationships with patients.
Birmingham is looking at reducing operations in gastroenterology, gynaecology, dermatology and orthopaedics. Parts of east London were among the first to introduce rationing, where some patients are being referred for homeopathic treatments instead of conventional treatment.
UPDATE: Consumers Are Pessimistic About Obamacare Consumer Protections (Suderman at reason):
Of course, it's probably a mistake to refer to the law's many new requirements as "consumer protections" at all. As Cato's Michael Cannon wrote at the beginning of the year, the law's myriad mandates "force consumers to divert income from food, housing, and education to pay for the additional coverage. That can leave consumers worse off, even threaten their health. They can also force employers to reduce hiring, leaving some Americans with neither a job nor health insurance."
IVF simply should not be covered. Birth control though, yes. Absolutely. I also have no problem with people having to lose weight before having joint replacements. Excess weight puts a lot of pressure on joints as anyone with a large dog knows. The person getting the care should have to put out some effort for it, unless they are paying cash for it themselves.
But yes, the NHS sucks and we are headed there on skis. Insane.
My stepsister (who may or may not be insured, I don't know) was diagnosed with a huge but non-urgent gallstone this past thurs (one week ago). She had surgery monday. Try THAT in the UK.
momof4 at July 28, 2011 8:35 AM
"where some patients are being referred for homeopathic treatments"
Head. Bang. On. Desk.
Further proof that politicians and bureaucrats know less than nothing about health topics in general.
TX CHL Instructor at July 28, 2011 12:09 PM
In California, we now license chiropractors, and private insurers pay for them. They are quacks. So I am not sure our system is any better, but it does cost double what the Brits pay.
People in Great Britain and Japan have longer lifespans than in USA, and pay far less for medical care (about one-half and one-quarter).
The lesson: Spend as little as you can on health care. It doesn't seem to make any difference.
BOTU at July 28, 2011 12:14 PM
People in Great Britain and Japan don't live our lifestyles. They don't have our murder rates for one. Our average lifespan is shorter because of young black and hispanic men, and tub o' lards of all colors. Compare 5 and 10 year survival rates on most any illness, we win. I'd rather get cancer here than any place in the world, even if it bankrupted me.
momof4 at July 28, 2011 12:46 PM
Some rationing is rational. For example, my Mom has Alzheimer's and has been basically catatonic for almost three years. She had a nice nest egg, but her care is $7,700 a month to drool asleep in a bed for 23.5 hours a day. When she broke her hip two years ago, they (Medicare) put her through a year of agony in physical rehab. Mercy would be euthenasia, as was performed on her grandfather in Scotland.
Eric at July 28, 2011 3:48 PM
Remember: what you specify for "someone else" will be applied to you, when someone thinks it's your turn.
And no, there is no reason for health care to be a government department. You should actually do it yourself.
Because nothing is really "free" - and when the system doesn't reward achievement and therefore supply falls below demand, you're getting rationing - no matter what you call it, or how mad you got at the term "death panels".
Radwaste at July 28, 2011 4:40 PM
Raddy, do you do it yourself, or do you insure your family's health through your employer?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 28, 2011 5:23 PM
My wife was diagnosed and has been under treatment for breast cancer for about 2 years now. I can only say that the US healthcare system is Fucking amazing. The "for profit' system cannot be beat. Everyone from her surgeon to oncologist has been great, although the radiologist, an Indian immigrant, was a prick
ronc at July 28, 2011 8:42 PM
"Raddy, do you do it yourself, or do you insure your family's health through your employer?"
As you well know - I have described my employment position repeatedly - I work for a Federal contractor at Savannah River Site.
You pay for my health-care plan. You will also pay for any Federal plan other, non-government workers are subject to. You would not have to if the one I describe here was put into play.
And my "Explanation of Benefits" from Blue Cross, Blue Shield would not contain fiction about who was paid what.
By the way - don't be confused by popular media, babbling about "having government workers pay a greater share of their health-care costs". What happens when that is enacted is that the government worker's disposable income is reduced, locked into the health-care plan they employ. It's not like magical income appears from somewhere else to lower the tax burden on others.
And - one step beyond - mandating government worker participation in planned healoth-care like The Affordable Care Act raises costs and the tax burden while lowering treatment quality - just as it has been shown to happen already by certain favored groups getting "exemption" from the Act!
Radwaste at July 29, 2011 5:41 AM
I don't think that IVF should be covered at all, personally, but rationing cataract surgery?! Cataract surgery is quick, cheap, and a HUGE change to your quality of life. There's no reason it should be rationed - nor should tonsillectomies (has anyone here has tonsillitis? It's agony, and making someone go through seven bouts of it in a year before considering treatment is horrid).
The UK health care system is wretchedly inefficient and leaves no room or incentive for innovative treatment. I think the problem with our healthcare system is that medical practices are drowning in paperwork and regulations and malpractice insurance have made even simple procedures prohibitively expensive without insurance.
Case in point - Virginia is passing (or may have already - it goes into effect soon, I believe) legislation to regulate OBGYN offices that perform abortions the same way they regulate clinics and hospitals. Not in any effective way, mind you, but stuff like having to have a certain number of bathrooms or doors of a certain width. Crap like that. It's not about patient safety at all, although they're couching it in those terms - it's simply about making abortion too hard to get for more women, like the rule about having to have a licensed anesthesiologist on hand even if they weren't being used. Early abortions are a quick and safe procedure when performed by someone who knows what they're doing, and the rate of complication is exceedingly rare.
Choika at July 29, 2011 9:11 AM
> You pay for my health-care plan
I guess I just can't understand your tone. You're coddled and safe at the expense of others, in an untenably (to say nothing of immorally) coercive scheme. Why should anyone listen to you explain how to be insured?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 29, 2011 9:25 AM
Oh, right. You have special powers. Sorry... forgot for a second.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 29, 2011 9:26 AM
Crid, you're a goddamned idiot.
Not only is it fallacious to assume that position lends veracity to an argument - this even has precedent. Damn, the Founders of this country were slave and property owners who set things up for that to change.
But you're so shallow, so bereft of anything other than a desire to be read and admired for your wit, you have no idea. Again.
You write really well when you have nothing to say. I suggest you stick to that.
Because it's not that I have "special powers" - you invented that - it's that you're not using what you might have, to reason.
Hey - I just gave you a way to keep more of your tax money. Throw it away, nitwit.
Radwaste at July 29, 2011 9:50 AM
"...where some patients are being referred for homeopathic treatments instead of conventional treatment."
And I'd almost prefer the homeopathic route in that situation. About the same odds of recovery at that point.
A question I saw on a blog the other day: "If you have a "right" to make me pay for your health care, how come you don't have a "right" to make me pick your cotton?"
Sio at July 29, 2011 1:34 PM
> Hey - I just gave you a way to keep
> more of your tax money.
Most of us would prefer that you just conducted your career with a typically capitalist sense of responsibility.
That would save us a motherfucking bundle.
But we'll certain keep your verbal suggestions in mind, even as the power of your example is so much more compelling.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 29, 2011 2:36 PM
"Most of us would prefer that you just conducted your career with a typically capitalist sense of responsibility."
Claiming things for others now, I see - after you've condemned others for doing so.
And once again - you're claiming to know about my job. If you did - and you do not - you would see that what I have said is true. But you can't allow that for some reason.
Nope. You're just channeling outrage at something you've imagined, not actually seen: "You're coddled and safe at the expense of others, in an untenably (to say nothing of immorally) coercive scheme."
Just as I said: you're insulted because nobody asked you whether you wanted atom bombs and all that came with them. Now you're just whining because somebody has a job doing something about it, and although you know nothing about the job, you've fabricated this vanity that you do. I suspect you even think it doesn't have to be done. I'll go look at the other thread to see if you've made any sense there yet.
Radwaste at July 29, 2011 6:21 PM
> you're insulted because nobody asked you
> whether you wanted atom bombs
Um, that's kind of a reach.
I'm insulted because you conduct your career in the most selfish, sheltered way possible, then deign to counsel those who aren't afraid of market judgment.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 29, 2011 8:53 PM
"I'm insulted because you conduct your career in the most selfish, sheltered way possible, then deign to counsel those who aren't afraid of market judgment."
Your position about me and my job is wholly manufactured in your own skull. It's not even supportable.
Get help. You need it.
Radwaste at July 30, 2011 11:17 PM
Be offended if you want, but I mean to be clear with people, Raddy: Your attitude towards your own precious career is precisely the problem. And each little protest you offer, with all the little expressions of sarcastic teenage resentment ("Get help") will augment my argument: Every government employee, from the chief executive to the lowliest janitor, is going to making exactly the same excuses in the years ahead.
You are the problem.
So sure, go ahead and squeal, if you like. People (wealth-creating taxpayers) are going to get to know your melody very, very intimately.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 31, 2011 9:47 PM
Some good info, I shall put it to the test soon.
Looking forward to watching your posts
Funded ADI Fleet Course at November 29, 2011 8:40 AM
Leave a comment