MaizieD
^These silly little teetering around the edges to save NHS money ideas would plainly not be necessary if we paid more for our universal service, which of course isn’t cheap, but not unaffordable.^
It's not only not unaffordable, but it would be beneficial to our economy; as I have pointed out several times in the past.
It doesn't have to be more expensive either, although we may choose it to be so that we can do more.
I have just been listening to Any Answers. Ian Bainbridge, who describes his background (around 30:56), was talking about an "integrated whole system". What caught my attention most was that "we need a shift to prevention". So fewer people are going to hospital.
That means joined-up integrated community teams. Using both health and social care flying squads, offering support in the community. Then there need to be integrated rehab teams which take people out of hospital and back into the community. He went on to say that "we" have proven, with pilot schemes, that you can divert "huge numbers" of older people who are in hospital, needing long-term care, who can, in fact, go home.
He added that quite a big percentage of those don't need long-term support if they have joined-up health and care and intensive rehab. He pointed out that they had discovered that 70% of those in hospital, deemed to need long-term care, didn't need it when they had one joined-up scheme.
As Anita Anand then said, "And they want to go home". And she is right.
Quite uplifting to listen to someone with a cogent and tested answer. But are any politicians listening? I keep saying we can afford the NHS, and I am sure that is true. But we not only can afford it, but we also must. It may mean a completely different integrated system that is all in the community except for advanced surgery, etc., but times change and we need to change with them.