• We invite you to join UKWorkshop.
    Members can turn off viewing Ads!

New hip anybody?

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

AlanY

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2021
Messages
29
Reaction score
25
Location
Chichester
I had a knee injury playing football some 40 years ago. It never really healed and I gave up playing at the age of 24. Since then, the knee has deteriorated to the point that I cannot do much with it. Osteoarthritis set in some years ago and I have been back and forwards to consultants within our beloved NHS. The concensus seems to be that I need a new knee, but I cannot have one because I have not reached the pain threshold where an operation will be approved. Hints have been dropped to me by doctors and nurses (not from my local practice, I hasten to add) that I need to lie about the pain, but I refuse to do that and because nothing changes I have simply accepted that I will never exercise again and will have to rely on a walking stick for support. I love the staff, but the NHS as an organisation needs reform (although I have no idea how such a dinosaur could be reformed).

(I thought about my original content of the last sentence and decided it was unfair to compare the NHS to our corrupt political system. Edited accordingly)
 
Last edited:

Jacob

Pint of bass, porkpie, and packet of crisps please
Joined
7 Jul 2010
Messages
17,963
Reaction score
743
Location
Derbyshire
I had a knee injury playing football some 40 years ago. It never really healed and I gave up playing at the age of 24. Since then, the knee has deteriorated to the point that I cannot do much with it. Osteoarthritis set in some years ago and I have been back and forwards to consultants within our beloved NHS. The concensus seems to be that I need a new knee, but I cannot have one because I have not reached the pain threshold where an operation will be approved. Hints have been dropped to me by doctors and nurses (not from my local practice, I hasten to add) that I need to lie about the pain, but I refuse to do that and because nothing changes I have simply accepted that I will never exercise again and will have to rely on a walking stick for support. I love the staff, but the NHS as an organisation is as corrupt as our politicians. It needs reform (but I have no idea how such a dinosaur could be reformed).
Hardly "corruption"! The reform it needs is greater expenditure, as is widely known, widely repeated, promised by current government. Not a dinosaur either - recognised worldwide as highly efficient and cost effective, but underfunded. Has been subject to extensive reform in recent years but not all to the good
You do have a point though - maybe make more fuss rather carry on putting up with the pain.
 

Lons

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
7,716
Reaction score
399
Location
Northumberland
Hardly "corruption"! The reform it needs is greater expenditure, as is widely known, widely repeated, promised by current government. Not a dinosaur either - recognised worldwide as highly efficient and cost effective, but underfunded. Has been subject to extensive reform in recent years but not all to the good
You do have a point though - maybe make more fuss rather carry on putting up with the pain.
Jacob, I'm in agreement with all you said above but it's not as simple as just throwing money at it, governments of all parties have been doing that for years to varying degrees and my comment has nothing to do with the politics of which party does what so I'm not going there with you or anyone else. The real issue is that that although I agree they need much more funding it needs to be spent in the right areas and not as has happened over decades just been used to swell the hierarchy rather than at the sharp end where it's most needed. More managers, computer systems and software that don't work and huge wastage of materials and resources won't get the waiting lists down.
 

Jacob

Pint of bass, porkpie, and packet of crisps please
Joined
7 Jul 2010
Messages
17,963
Reaction score
743
Location
Derbyshire
....... I agree they need much more funding it needs to be spent in the right areas and not as has happened over decades just been used to swell the hierarchy rather than at the sharp end where it's most needed. .....
Agree. The theory was that the NHS needed more management and separation to be more efficient. Big mistake. Big step towards privatisation - which is now well under way and not a coincidence
 

Peterm1000

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2018
Messages
311
Reaction score
80
Location
Godalming
Being careful not to steer into party politics...

The problem I believe is that there are always new cures for the incurable and improvements to previous treatments being found. These generally require new medicines or new machinery - both of which are expensive. Just compare the equipment in a hospital today to the equipment of 70 years ago.

The cost to the country of the NHS in 1950 was 3.5% of GDP and today it's about 7%. Taking inflation into account, the NHS costs 10 times what it did 70 years ago. The scope of what the NHS treated in 1950 and the scope today are radically different. There are value decisions that need to be made as to which treatments the country will pay for and which they won't - so a tried and tested hip replacement that has a certain outcome and costs about £7-10k? Yes, we'll pay for that. An experimental cancer treatment that might have a 5% chance of success and cost the same? We won't pay for that.

The service we get for free (at the point of use for the pedants) is not as comprehensive or as good quality as people get in other countries under their self-paid / insured system. However, historically, although lots of people have suggested someone else should pay more, no one has volunteered to pay more themselves (you have the ability to overpay tax in the UK if you want - almost no one does). I think this is the challenge we are all facing...
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
6,420
Reaction score
736
Location
PA, US
I had a knee injury playing football some 40 years ago. It never really healed and I gave up playing at the age of 24. Since then, the knee has deteriorated to the point that I cannot do much with it. Osteoarthritis set in some years ago and I have been back and forwards to consultants within our beloved NHS. The concensus seems to be that I need a new knee, but I cannot have one because I have not reached the pain threshold where an operation will be approved. Hints have been dropped to me by doctors and nurses (not from my local practice, I hasten to add) that I need to lie about the pain, but I refuse to do that and because nothing changes I have simply accepted that I will never exercise again and will have to rely on a walking stick for support. I love the staff, but the NHS as an organisation needs reform (although I have no idea how such a dinosaur could be reformed).

(I thought about my original content of the last sentence and decided it was unfair to compare the NHS to our corrupt political system. Edited accordingly)
This is one case where in the states, if you had solid insurance from an employer, the providers would be falling all over you to replace your knee. The cost would be around $0-100 out of pocket, I would guess, depending on your coverage, and then possibly a little bit more for copays on physical therapy (though they may be covered for some under the original fee).

The flip side is if you have high deductible coverage, you may pay the entire deductible, but you wouldn't have to express much other than that you have discomfort that would be solved. It wouldn't have to be "bad" discomfort.
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
6,420
Reaction score
736
Location
PA, US
Being careful not to steer into party politics...

The problem I believe is that there are always new cures for the incurable and improvements to previous treatments being found. These generally require new medicines or new machinery - both of which are expensive. Just compare the equipment in a hospital today to the equipment of 70 years ago.

The cost to the country of the NHS in 1950 was 3.5% of GDP and today it's about 7%. Taking inflation into account, the NHS costs 10 times what it did 70 years ago. The scope of what the NHS treated in 1950 and the scope today are radically different. There are value decisions that need to be made as to which treatments the country will pay for and which they won't - so a tried and tested hip replacement that has a certain outcome and costs about £7-10k? Yes, we'll pay for that. An experimental cancer treatment that might have a 5% chance of success and cost the same? We won't pay for that.

The service we get for free (at the point of use for the pedants) is not as comprehensive or as good quality as people get in other countries under their self-paid / insured system. However, historically, although lots of people have suggested someone else should pay more, no one has volunteered to pay more themselves (you have the ability to overpay tax in the UK if you want - almost no one does). I think this is the challenge we are all facing...
No real solution here from the US standpoint as our cost is probably $6k more per individual per year in the US - that's a LOT. But wonder of the NHS would be better served by some scaling or cost sharing, so that the mention above re: the knee would be "your pain is ____ so you are not eligible for full cost replacement, but you are eligible for 50% cost sharing on it".

This kind of thing creates complication, reporting, red tape and more fibbing, though. Everyone would overstate their pain. I'd still choose the NHS system as a base here just due to cost. The insurance system is so large that supplemental policies covering things like this would show up immediately.
 

Jacob

Pint of bass, porkpie, and packet of crisps please
Joined
7 Jul 2010
Messages
17,963
Reaction score
743
Location
Derbyshire
....The service we get for free (at the point of use for the pedants) is not as comprehensive or as good quality as people get in other countries under their self-paid / insured system.
Comparing like with like? How does our free service compare to other nations' free services for the non payers or non insured.
 

Peterm1000

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2018
Messages
311
Reaction score
80
Location
Godalming
Comparing like with like? How does our free service compare to other nations' free services for the non payers or non insured.
I think where countries do have any kind of free health service (go to Sudan or Gabon and try getting free healthcare...), they tend to be less comprehensive than what we get in the UK - note, I think. Which is why you see the scandalous situation of some of the world's wealthiest countries with people wandering around with some very fixable diseases.
 

AlanY

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2021
Messages
29
Reaction score
25
Location
Chichester
Comparing like with like? How does our free service compare to other nations' free services for the non payers or non insured.
Since when was the NHS free? It is only free to those who do not pay tax or who use the service when visiting the UK. For the rest of us a big chunk of the tax/NI we pay goes to funding the NHS. This is the problem I have with reforming the NHS: how could it be done without removing that essential 'free at the point of use' element? I suspect an even bigger problem is that I probably am not qualified to speak on the subject but, Hell, it is still an almost-free country.
 

Inspector

Nyuck, Nyuck, Nyuck!
Joined
18 Jun 2006
Messages
2,114
Reaction score
383
Location
Saskatoon, SK., Canada
Canada also has universal health care. Each province is in charge of theirs with the Federal Government sharing in the costs. Some provinces have no subscription fees, this one for example, where others charge an annual fee of up to $200 per family. If you can't afford that care is still provided. Ambulance fees may or may not be included in the coverage. Everything is covered except cosmetic operations, eg; breast enhancements, nose jobs, but medically needed ones like breast reductions for back pain are covered as are reconstructive work from accidents. Heart operations, cancers, joint replacements illnesses, child birth etc are all provided although some have long waits. Dental for the most part is not covered. Yearly eye exams for kids until they come of age is covered, the prescriptions for glasses I don't know. Drug prescriptions are not covered until retirement. Private insurance is available for the extras like dental, glasses and drug prescriptions and many employers provide it. You can also find private medical centres if you want to pay for an operation and don't want to wait. Workman's Compensation often use private services because it can be cheaper to get an injured worker back to work rather than pay for them to stay at home until fixed up. First Nations peoples have coverage for everything by treaty. Refugees get all their medical needs taken care of for at least a year until they transition into society. I've probably missed a lot but it appears our systems are similar.

Pete
 

TominDales

Established Member
Joined
21 Jan 2021
Messages
193
Reaction score
138
Location
Ripon
Comparing like with like? How does our free service compare to other nations' free services for the non payers or non insured.
Most Northern European countries provide excellent universal healthcare to all their citizens regardless of income. However its very hard to compare like healthcare (HC) systems with like as every country has its own culture and doing it their way. One thing that strikes me as odd about debates on the NHS, is that its generally only compared to the US system and those comparisons are usually rather crude. Whats is surprising is universal HC that is essentially free in Europe that gives good outcomes are not talked about in the UK. This is especially odd as on some metrics they give better outcomes than the NHS. Not to say that the NHS isn't superb and something to be immensely proud off.

Newspapers and UK politicians very rarely look at Northern European HC and don't do analysis of where those countries are delivering better national outcomes to the NHS in some areas- metrics like cancer survival rates, waiting times and overall mortality rates. Its probably because the ones with the best outcomes operate in a very different cultural and historical context to ours, and maybe innovations would be hard to implement, and impossible politically as NHS is a highly politicised issue in the UK.

Most European HC systems have a mixture of private, charity and church based hospitals, these are either paid for by the patents insurance or by the state. In most countries its not free at the point of use, but reimbursed through insurance schemes, although countries such as France issue citizens with a national credit card to pay. The Bismarkian insurance type schemes (Germany's comprehensive insurance based national healthcare dates back to 1880) enable these countries to raise more funding for their H/C system than the UKs tax based system - from 1% to 2% of gdp more and in a less politicised environment than the UK. There is a market element that enables them to charge the rich more, which helps raise significantly more money.

Free for the poor.
Citizens in most Northern European states (states with similar standard of living to the UK) are compelled to take out health insurance from an approved provider, a bit like UK car insurance is compulsory. In several countries there is a choice of provider offering different levels of cover. For all patents, the basics are the same ie good safe H/C, but those that pay more get slightly quicker service and slightly posher hospitals. The unemployed and poor have theirs paid for by the state and get the basic service (of a standard as good as the UK). The trick is for those in paid employment, pay about 13% of their salary into the insurance on top of other taxes. The way I liken it is an analogy with taking a plane flight, the state pays for an economy flight whereas the private insurance pays for business class. They pay 13% plus and get a slightly faster and more comfortable service, but both passengers get the same safe flight that takes them from a to b. This extra 1% to 2% of extra finance enables continental countries to employ more doctors per 1000 people than the UK. I think its this two tier structure that makes the European systems less political than in the UK. The rich pay up because they see they get a better service (even if its only cosmetically different), the poor like it because they get excellent healthcare for free. Because of the duel funding structure there is less funding from general taxation so its not such a hole at the treasury.

To my mind, the other huge benefit of these HC systems is how un-politicized they are. They are not associated with one political party as the founding of the NHS is, but a consensus that goes back to Bismark with subsequent improvements as social modernisation and innovation in social democracy developed in Europe. Originally the schemes were only available to those who could afford insurance, but since WW2 the state has covered those whose incomes are low or the unemployed.

In terms of delivery, the different private hospitals groups compete for patients, which means they need to provide an excess of resources such as beds and doctors (an in-efficiency cf the NHS) but means they have extra capacity available for winter flu, patients have more choice, and lower waiting times. Its probably the main reason COVID death rates in Northern European countries are lower than the UK, they have a bit more critical care capacity than us.

These schemes are not much discussed in the UK. I think its largely that they are so different to the , tax payer financed NHS and universal monolithic offer. They are probably impossible for us to copy without politically impossible changes. Its could be seen as privatising the NHS and we don't trust our governments sufficiently to allow for such reforms and we are terrified that we would adopt a US model so its just not discussed. For the right of centre politically the continental systems is paid for disproportionately by the well off. So I can see that politically it does not appeal to either the left or the right.
Every EU country is different to a degree, there finance and paying structures reflect their history and culture, but they have broadly similar Bismarkien insurance based schemes with government top up for the unemployed, disabled, this makes comparisons across Europe really quite hard as not country is the same.
I heard a Professor of H/C policy from Imperial college give a talk to us at work on improvement schemes in the NHS and I asked him to rank other countries, he said that although France appears fantastic, especially to British tourists, there are discrepancies in provision between wealthy areas (that tourists visit) and the depressed mining communities, so overall he didn't think the French got so much better treatment than we do through the NHS, even though they spend more gdp on HC than us. He said its difficult to compare data sets, however he held up examples of clearly more effective systems, the Netherlands, Finland, Nordics, Germany, Belgium as leading lights. He commented that the Netherlands and Finland spend about the same as us on HC but get better outcomes. Another fact of European H/C is they train more doctors and nurses per head than we do and they pay there doctors, consultants a lot less than their equivalent in the UK. This has the upside that it helps the NHS recruit from the EU, when desperate, but it means on the downside, on the whole we have less doctors and consultants than our pears overseas, and we expect them to be more productive.

I hope that answered your question, I've tried to keep it factual. But one observation on these various systems is one of how easy is it to convince a population to fund its HC.
I think that as long as we solely rely on taxation to fund the NHS, we will have to accept there are limits to what taxpayers will reasonably put up with. Healthcare is predominantly consumed by the old, (although we all use it, something like 85% of operations are on the over 65s) but paid for my the young fit and healthy, so there is only so much that politicians of all colours can persuade people to transfer through taxation. That is the one obvious benefit from the continental way of doing things.

The other comparison is value for money.
Its hard to compare things like efficiency and productivity as the boundaries of what is NHS and the rest of the state are so different. So with that caveat, there have been studies, one fact that differentiates the NHS is that is by an large a nationalised monopoly, it does not need to compete and so runs to keep its assets full through central/regional planning and has very high utilisation of its assets ie bed use, ration of staff to general population, whereas European hospitals are private or charitable entities that compete in a market for patients so need to have extra capacity. the NHS scores well on efficiency measure based on asset and people utilisation. However the NHS sufferer from structural inefficiency through its regionals and hierarchical structures, consultant fiefdoms and silos that are prevalent in a large employment structure. The more atomised continental systems are efficient at delivery and efficient with patents time. In many (but not all) European countries, the primary care center - cf our GP practice, often has a healthcare centers equipped with laboratories and scanners so that the doctor can get scans etc done while you visit. Cutting down on a lot of waste which we don't measure in the UK. One sad trend, is the UK system seems to have got less efficient over the past 10 years - not sure if this is just the way we measure it, its got more sophisticated, or the effect of the Landsley reforms
One benefit of having a national systems is in a global emergency, such as responding to a pandemic can be centrally planned and rolled out, we saw that this year where patients were transferred up and down the country during the hight of the pandemic, whereas Italy struggled with its excellent, but regionally organised H/C. In terms of value for money the NHS is up in the top tier (US is way down) but the Netherlands, Finland, Belgium Nordics seem to offer better value for money.

Most comparisons of H/C tend to focus on money - costs of this and than. But the other dimension is trust, brand image and care and feel. Here the NHS is outstanding in this regard. We trust the staff, we trust the motivation and care. Scandals in the NHS are usually due to incompetence, the odd murderous of competent professional hiding in the system, but the people, there motivation and the organisation is trusted and loved. However when I speak to work colleagues from Northern European visiting or resident in the UK, they prefer to go home to get treatment as they don't trust the NHS to the extent we do. And avoid British dentists at all costs has been something I've read about all my life, which I think is unfair as dental practice has improved during my lifetime.

Although these systems work well in Northern Europe, they are just so complety different to the UK that its hard to see how we can learn from them. If over time their healthcare massively outperform ours, then maybe there would be a case for a re-think.

So Jacob, to try and answer your questions - and I hope I've not introduced politics into this as its a genuinely interesting topic, out biggest national institution and the second biggest area of government expenditure - also my company is being paid by the tax payer to develop vaccines so I have a personal interest. There are HC systems every bit as good and free as the NHS, but we just don't discuss them in the UK. unfortunately they are so different that its hard for us to lean from them and vice versa. We can only look on enviously at the HC available to a Finn, a Dane, a German a Dutchperson, that does not have the same political interference as this country, they tend to leave it to the professionals, civil service, contracted, regulated insurance companies, private hospitals etc, to just get on with it. I do wish for that.
 

Peterm1000

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2018
Messages
311
Reaction score
80
Location
Godalming
Since when was the NHS free? It is only free to those who do not pay tax or who use the service when visiting the UK. For the rest of us a big chunk of the tax/NI we pay goes to funding the NHS. This is the problem I have with reforming the NHS: how could it be done without removing that essential 'free at the point of use' element? I suspect an even bigger problem is that I probably am not qualified to speak on the subject but, Hell, it is still an almost-free country.
Go back a few pages - this discussion has been comprehensively had already. The NHS describes itself as "free" and has it as the first 2 of their guiding principles. Obviously it gets paid for by taxes as do every other public item in the UK which everyone still posting on this thread has acknowledged. If you park in the town centre on a Sunday and don't pay, that's not "free" as you paid for the tarmac and parking attendant through your taxes - the sign will still describe it as "free".
 

Peterm1000

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2018
Messages
311
Reaction score
80
Location
Godalming
Most Northern European countries provide excellent universal healthcare to all their citizens regardless of income. However its very hard to compare like healthcare (HC) systems with like as every country has its own culture and doing it their way. One thing that strikes me as odd about debates on the NHS, is that its generally only compared to the US system and those comparisons are usually rather crude. Whats is surprising is universal HC that is essentially free in Europe that gives good outcomes are not talked about in the UK. This is especially odd as on some metrics they give better outcomes than the NHS. Not to say that the NHS isn't superb and something to be immensely proud off.

Newspapers and UK politicians very rarely look at Northern European HC and don't do analysis of where those countries are delivering better national outcomes to the NHS in some areas- metrics like cancer survival rates, waiting times and overall mortality rates. Its probably because the ones with the best outcomes operate in a very different cultural and historical context to ours, and maybe innovations would be hard to implement, and impossible politically as NHS is a highly politicised issue in the UK.

Most European HC systems have a mixture of private, charity and church based hospitals, these are either paid for by the patents insurance or by the state. In most countries its not free at the point of use, but reimbursed through insurance schemes, although countries such as France issue citizens with a national credit card to pay. The Bismarkian insurance type schemes (Germany's comprehensive insurance based national healthcare dates back to 1880) enable these countries to raise more funding for their H/C system than the UKs tax based system - from 1% to 2% of gdp more and in a less politicised environment than the UK. There is a market element that enables them to charge the rich more, which helps raise significantly more money.

Free for the poor.
Citizens in most Northern European states (states with similar standard of living to the UK) are compelled to take out health insurance from an approved provider, a bit like UK car insurance is compulsory. In several countries there is a choice of provider offering different levels of cover. For all patents, the basics are the same ie good safe H/C, but those that pay more get slightly quicker service and slightly posher hospitals. The unemployed and poor have theirs paid for by the state and get the basic service (of a standard as good as the UK). The trick is for those in paid employment, pay about 13% of their salary into the insurance on top of other taxes. The way I liken it is an analogy with taking a plane flight, the state pays for an economy flight whereas the private insurance pays for business class. They pay 13% plus and get a slightly faster and more comfortable service, but both passengers get the same safe flight that takes them from a to b. This extra 1% to 2% of extra finance enables continental countries to employ more doctors per 1000 people than the UK. I think its this two tier structure that makes the European systems less political than in the UK. The rich pay up because they see they get a better service (even if its only cosmetically different), the poor like it because they get excellent healthcare for free. Because of the duel funding structure there is less funding from general taxation so its not such a hole at the treasury.

To my mind, the other huge benefit of these HC systems is how un-politicized they are. They are not associated with one political party as the founding of the NHS is, but a consensus that goes back to Bismark with subsequent improvements as social modernisation and innovation in social democracy developed in Europe. Originally the schemes were only available to those who could afford insurance, but since WW2 the state has covered those whose incomes are low or the unemployed.

In terms of delivery, the different private hospitals groups compete for patients, which means they need to provide an excess of resources such as beds and doctors (an in-efficiency cf the NHS) but means they have extra capacity available for winter flu, patients have more choice, and lower waiting times. Its probably the main reason COVID death rates in Northern European countries are lower than the UK, they have a bit more critical care capacity than us.

These schemes are not much discussed in the UK. I think its largely that they are so different to the , tax payer financed NHS and universal monolithic offer. They are probably impossible for us to copy without politically impossible changes. Its could be seen as privatising the NHS and we don't trust our governments sufficiently to allow for such reforms and we are terrified that we would adopt a US model so its just not discussed. For the right of centre politically the continental systems is paid for disproportionately by the well off. So I can see that politically it does not appeal to either the left or the right.
Every EU country is different to a degree, there finance and paying structures reflect their history and culture, but they have broadly similar Bismarkien insurance based schemes with government top up for the unemployed, disabled, this makes comparisons across Europe really quite hard as not country is the same.
I heard a Professor of H/C policy from Imperial college give a talk to us at work on improvement schemes in the NHS and I asked him to rank other countries, he said that although France appears fantastic, especially to British tourists, there are discrepancies in provision between wealthy areas (that tourists visit) and the depressed mining communities, so overall he didn't think the French got so much better treatment than we do through the NHS, even though they spend more gdp on HC than us. He said its difficult to compare data sets, however he held up examples of clearly more effective systems, the Netherlands, Finland, Nordics, Germany, Belgium as leading lights. He commented that the Netherlands and Finland spend about the same as us on HC but get better outcomes. Another fact of European H/C is they train more doctors and nurses per head than we do and they pay there doctors, consultants a lot less than their equivalent in the UK. This has the upside that it helps the NHS recruit from the EU, when desperate, but it means on the downside, on the whole we have less doctors and consultants than our pears overseas, and we expect them to be more productive.

I hope that answered your question, I've tried to keep it factual. But one observation on these various systems is one of how easy is it to convince a population to fund its HC.
I think that as long as we solely rely on taxation to fund the NHS, we will have to accept there are limits to what taxpayers will reasonably put up with. Healthcare is predominantly consumed by the old, (although we all use it, something like 85% of operations are on the over 65s) but paid for my the young fit and healthy, so there is only so much that politicians of all colours can persuade people to transfer through taxation. That is the one obvious benefit from the continental way of doing things.

The other comparison is value for money.
Its hard to compare things like efficiency and productivity as the boundaries of what is NHS and the rest of the state are so different. So with that caveat, there have been studies, one fact that differentiates the NHS is that is by an large a nationalised monopoly, it does not need to compete and so runs to keep its assets full through central/regional planning and has very high utilisation of its assets ie bed use, ration of staff to general population, whereas European hospitals are private or charitable entities that compete in a market for patients so need to have extra capacity. the NHS scores well on efficiency measure based on asset and people utilisation. However the NHS sufferer from structural inefficiency through its regionals and hierarchical structures, consultant fiefdoms and silos that are prevalent in a large employment structure. The more atomised continental systems are efficient at delivery and efficient with patents time. In many (but not all) European countries, the primary care center - cf our GP practice, often has a healthcare centers equipped with laboratories and scanners so that the doctor can get scans etc done while you visit. Cutting down on a lot of waste which we don't measure in the UK. One sad trend, is the UK system seems to have got less efficient over the past 10 years - not sure if this is just the way we measure it, its got more sophisticated, or the effect of the Landsley reforms
One benefit of having a national systems is in a global emergency, such as responding to a pandemic can be centrally planned and rolled out, we saw that this year where patients were transferred up and down the country during the hight of the pandemic, whereas Italy struggled with its excellent, but regionally organised H/C. In terms of value for money the NHS is up in the top tier (US is way down) but the Netherlands, Finland, Belgium Nordics seem to offer better value for money.

Most comparisons of H/C tend to focus on money - costs of this and than. But the other dimension is trust, brand image and care and feel. Here the NHS is outstanding in this regard. We trust the staff, we trust the motivation and care. Scandals in the NHS are usually due to incompetence, the odd murderous of competent professional hiding in the system, but the people, there motivation and the organisation is trusted and loved. However when I speak to work colleagues from Northern European visiting or resident in the UK, they prefer to go home to get treatment as they don't trust the NHS to the extent we do. And avoid British dentists at all costs has been something I've read about all my life, which I think is unfair as dental practice has improved during my lifetime.

Although these systems work well in Northern Europe, they are just so complety different to the UK that its hard to see how we can learn from them. If over time their healthcare massively outperform ours, then maybe there would be a case for a re-think.

So Jacob, to try and answer your questions - and I hope I've not introduced politics into this as its a genuinely interesting topic, out biggest national institution and the second biggest area of government expenditure - also my company is being paid by the tax payer to develop vaccines so I have a personal interest. There are HC systems every bit as good and free as the NHS, but we just don't discuss them in the UK. unfortunately they are so different that its hard for us to lean from them and vice versa. We can only look on enviously at the HC available to a Finn, a Dane, a German a Dutchperson, that does not have the same political interference as this country, they tend to leave it to the professionals, civil service, contracted, regulated insurance companies, private hospitals etc, to just get on with it. I do wish for that.
Interesting post - thank you.

So most individuals do pay more...
 
Top