Funding the NHS?

Aka Sun 15-Jun-14 20:27:46
Thanks AAA
The fact that NICE thinks this can dramatically improve the quality of life makes it even worse that it can't be funded.

Whilst it's NICE ;-)) to get your thanks, I can't see where NICE even suggests that this procedure can provide a dramatic improvement.
These are the words used:

What has NICE said?
The evidence shows that the procedure is effective but that
complications can be serious.
However, I do agree that if the Clinicians, other professionals and the parents all agree that on a 'cost / benefit' type analysis the 'risk' is worth taking, then the procedure should go ahead - any other decision seems perverse.
In the days of PCTs, one could lobby the Board at its meetings held in Public. But since control of OUR £65 000 000 000 NHS cash to pay for such treatments has been transferred into the [private] hands of the GPs who form the CCGs, one does NOT have the right to attend Board meetings.
In addition, the Lay 'Representatives' of the Public and Patients who serve on the CCG Boards are chosen by the CCGs to occupy those £15 000 a year posts.
If any readers of this are not members of the Patients; Association, an effective national lobby group, please do consider joining. If you don't want, or can't afford, to become a Full member, you can be an eMail member and contribute to the activities - FREE.
The Patients Association <[email protected]

I used to be a member of the Patients Association until I realised who the corporate members were, Bupa, Novartis, etc., Happyman.

My husband fell off a ladder and fractured his spine. His spinal cord was damaged quite severely, and he had titanium plates to hold it together.
The side effects and complications can be quite severe, so to actually cut parts of the spinal cord on purpose and not know until after you have done it what the complications would be is a horrible thought. We were told that the nervous system in the spine is like a telephone junction box, and having to find the right one to repair is near impossible. That was after his operation.
I do not envy those parents, having to decide what risk is worth it.
My husband had a 50% chance of being paraplegic with the operation. As it was, he was in pain for the rest of his life.

AAA note i didn't quote but I will now
" reduction in spasticity of the legs, reduced need for further corrective procedures, quality of life, and improvements in patients’ ability to move, gait and walking, and level of independence"

I'd call that pretty dammed dramatic wouldn't you?

Jess back to the OP. My point being that rather than put more money into the NHS we need to find ways to take less out.

Bariatric procedures for the obese can help stop them developing type 2 diabetes, and in some cases reverse it in those who already have it. This is only one example of good cost effective treatment.

I know I am always harping on about it but £24,000,000 each and every day to treat diabetes is killing the NHS and is on the rise.

Just followed Aka 's link and see that funding for Sophie's op is at the halfway mark. Sometimes it's possible to help by making a tiny donation to one individual even if it's incredibly difficult to fix the enormous mess. Yesterday my niece took part in a local fundraiser to raise cash to fund research into a condition suffered by just 25 children in UK including the son of her friend.
Not sure if Sophie would fare any better in Scotland.

Yes that link is just what I was looking for, I do hope many on GN will have a look at it

This is such a complex subject and all of your input is very interesting. I agree with all your points Eleothan. It is wrong to generalise as situations and cases vary. People cannot always be blamed for their state of health in relation to the the baddies in diet that we have been discussing.
Aka that is such a good point you are making - 'Instead of putting more money into the NHS we should be finding ways to take less out'
The prediction of this obesity crisis was made 20 years ago. If it had been tackled then we wouldn't be in this crisis now.
I hate to admit it but I think that medical care of the elderly has deteriorated and currently is costing the NHS more than it should. A few weeks ago I saw a Channel 4 program where one old lady was calling 999 on almost a daily basis simply to help her get comfortable in bed. I know somebody personally who does something similar. Because there is no co-ordinated thinking, these people have no idea where to obtain help.
Just this month my doctor's surgery is designating a particular doctor to the over 75's. This could be a good start as hopefully it will be the first port of call for advice and assistance.
There is no doubt that there are too many demands on the NHS. A&E is being treated as though it is a walk in surgery and old folks are going to the doctors just for a chat!

durhamjen Mon 16-Jun-14 00:50:55
I used to be a member of the Patients Association until I realised who the corporate members were, Bupa, Novartis, etc., Happyman.
Many thanks for this data - after a considerable amount of surfing, I managed to track down their Corporate Membership page :
www.patients-association.com/Default.aspx?tabid=78
Charities are caught twixt Scylla and Charybdis when it comes to fund raising: the multi-headed monster of the Profit oriented sector, and the whirlpool of Government funding and collapse if they don't co-operate with the latest Privatization or pressganged volunteers, wheeze.

Hence having to make sure that the NHS does not get caught up in the TTIP.

Aka Mon 16-Jun-14 07:57:22
AAA note i didn't quote but I will now
" reduction in spasticity of the legs, reduced need for ...''
I'd call that pretty dammed dramatic wouldn't you?
I'd prefer to use the terms applied by NICE in their Report :
NICE has said that this procedure is safe enough and works well enough for use in the NHS. If your child’s doctor thinks it is a suitable treatment option, he or she should still make sure you understand the benefits and risks before asking you to agree to it.
Even allowing for British litotes, it doesn't seem to endorse your claim?

I give up on you AAA ... My quote was from the NICE document too, and I'm not arguing there is a risk with this procedure, as there are with many medical interventions. But it seems that while I'm able to accept this (your point) you are not able to recognise mine.

I don't bother trying to make a point with those who cannot see both sides of the coin.

Alias, alias aka
Confucius said :
A person who sees both sides of the coin gets:
cross eyed, and
the sharp edge from both sides.

Aka
5NO-where in that, or any other document, does NICE state about this procedure that it:
''... can dramatically improve the quality of life ... ''
Science based findings are not reported in that Tabloid / Red Top, journo style of language.
And as for your : ... pretty dammed dramatic ...

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/06/17/the-nhs-is-a-world-beating-health-service-and-a-stunningly-cost-effective-health-care-provider/

These figures were taken before privatisation kicked in.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Aka, that's for making me

The NICE recommendations do say "As well as looking at these studies, NICE also asked expert advisers for their
views. These advisers are clinical specialists in this field of medicine. The
advisers said that the aims are reduction in spasticity of the legs, reduced
need for further corrective procedures, quality of life, and improvements in
patients’ ability to move, gait and walking, and level of independence"

The advisers also list the risks involved.

I would think it would be up to the parents, and the child's doctors, to decide whether to go ahead with this treatment or not. Must be a hard decision to make.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/royal-college-of-nurses-threatens-to-unseat-mps-who-do-not-support-nhs-staff-payrise-9541438.html

Shame it's just about the pay and not conditions, but it's a start. If it works. They have been known to lie about the NHS before.

durhamjen Tue 17-Jun-14 17:46:12
www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/06/17/the-nhs-is-a-world-beating-health-service-and-a-stunningly-cost-effective-health-care-provider/
These figures were taken before privatisation kicked in.

Thank you for the further confirmation that OUR=NHS is astonishingly efficient at delivering the 'goods' at the best price.
Not only that, but on the basis of highly qualified identification of NEED, and not on ability to pay.
Part of the reason for the astonishing success of this pioneer of ''Need, not Greed'' has been that because it was 'ours' most people didn't abuse it, and most NHS Staff wanted to provide a good service to the people who in so many cases were their own kith, kin, friends and neighbours.
It's because at the moment it's such a bargain that the huge purse snatching, Health-Problem-Plundering-Pirate-Privateers see that there are enormous profits to be made
*....demolishing the ethos of OUR=NHS in favour of PROFIT;
*....turning patients into 'customers', and customers into cash-cows
*....promoting private patient plans to queue jump
*....pushing up prices to USA levels
*....clearing out difficult / expensive, non-insurance cases to Charity Hospitals.
*....leaving the tax-payer to clear up the mess left by the USA phenomenon of Health-Care caused personal bankruptcy [# 1 cause; 2 million affected per year.].

AAA you say "pushing up prices to USA levels"

Whilst I am in not in any way suggesting that we should follow the American model of healthcare, the costs are sometimes greater in the NHS.

Earlier this year I was in America and had an attack of acute cystitis. I went to the Sarasota Memorial Hospital Urgent Care Clinic.
I was seen within 10 minutes by a nurse and a doctor, had a urine sample tested, and was given a prescription for antibiotics.

It cost US$140, about £100.

That compares with every A&E admission costing £1700 here. I realise of course that some A&E admissions will involve more complicated things than urine samples, but the majority of them don't.

Goodness me, GNHQ's getting very...strict!

Yep! Aka was right, anyway!

The costs of any public service depend very much on what you include. I assume the £1700 will consist of a proportion of the total cost allocated to that area. And hospitals have expensive plant to run and administrative and ancillary costs. The doctors and nurses who work in A&E might have no direct or personal admin support but there will be receptionists and record clerks and a general notion of admin and ancillary support the cost of which will be attached to every A&E encounter.

Well yes of course Lilygran, but those costs apply in America too, and are factored in to the fees charged to patients.