It is said by some in Britain that although the NHS has its failings, it is still great when it comes to emergencies. I am sceptical about this claim. For one thing, if a hospital lacks up-to-date scanners (as many hospitals in the NHS do)then it may not be able to do the best possible scan for the particular emergency concerned.
I believe, as I have written before, that the only reason that private medicine in Britain includes very little in the way of emergency care is that the scale of private care is not yet big enough in the UK to make the big investment worthwhile for a private company. Companies might also fear political opposition.
There is, incidentally, one emergency care private clinic in London for relatively minor conditions. It is, understandably, in London near the road which leads to Heathrow airport and the West.
Meanwhile, I am interested to get this from a correspondent in Australia,
Hello James, Thought you might be interested in the huge increase in the use of private emergency rooms here in Australia:"Record numbers of patients are paying up to $300 to beat public
hospital emergency queues by seeking treatment at Perth's only private
emergency department, which charges them according to how sick they
are.""In the past year, 25,000 people have attended its 24-hour emergency
department, about half the number of patients seen by each of the
emergency departments at (the Public) Royal Perth and Sir Charles
Gairdner hospitals."
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=158&ContentID=35113
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in NHS
Comments (4)
TrackBack (14)
Comments
On America, please look at this entry on this website: http://www.thewelfarestatewerein.com/archives/2005/02/which_is_better.php
You can also input "America health" for more about comparisons between American healthcare and the NHS.
On Scandinavia, please see the book which has a section on "the Stockholm experiment".
If you use the website to search for "Scandinavia" or "sweden" you will also find more material.
Thankyou for your interest.
Posted by: James Bartholomew at August 12, 2007 02:12 PM
Alex Cooke should perhaps do some research before he describes the USA as having a "wholly private health service". It has nothing of the sort.
About half of all US healthcare spending is state funded. There are also tax reliefs which effectively raise this figure higher. The US tax reliefs horribly distort the provision and cost of health spending (they're only avaiable for employer funded healthcare) and remove the incentives for the user to be conscious of costs. Add to this the power of the American Medical Association and you have a situation where the cost of medical care is artifically inflated in the interests of producers.
In many ways there are similarities in the US and UK - in both cases leading to hugely overpriced medical care. The main difference is that in the US, this means that the cost has gone through the roof, whereas in the UK, it means that we have to ration supply.
Many European countries have systems much closer to the free market than either the UK or the US, but with suitable safeguards. Their common advantage over the UK and US is that producer interests do not dominate, so they get a lot morefor their money.
Posted by: HJHJ at August 13, 2007 01:48 PM
Hi James,
I follow your blog with interest. I have to say that although I would agree the NHS has many failings, as someone forced to use huge variety of its services I still believe it is superb and second to none when it comes to emergency care. I have unfortunately also experienced emergency room treatment in the USA as well as the UK, and still believe in this situation the UK is vastly superior when all factors are considered.
I was admitted to A&E this weekend with breathing difficulties related to my underlying genetic condition. This is a rare problem never previously seen by the doctors treating me, and I unfortunately went in on a friday evening, not a good time as we all know.
I was seen treated and home in under four hours, although the doctors had wanted to admit me, by that time I had been seen by a specialist registrar, who'd immediately called the on call ENT specialist in from home, arriving in under half an hour, with the correct specialist equipment, scoping my throat there and then in the A&E department.
My concerns as someone reliant on the welfare state and not through choice, is that people like me would suffer terribly under a more privatised system. I totally agree with you that radical reform is required, throughout the NHS and the entire welfare state, but knowing how the systems currently operate from within I firmly believe that radical reform and enormous cost saving is perfectly possibly whilst keeping both the NHS and a protective welfare state, just not operating in the current forms. Bendy Girl
Posted by: Bendygirl at August 19, 2007 10:12 AM
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2007/07/private_emergen.php on line 332
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Invalid arguments passed in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2007/07/private_emergen.php on line 332
I like to know this just so I can get my head round what people want for the health service. Do you want a wholly private health service as in the USA? Or are you just annoyed that the NHS offers a mediocre service?
The reason I ask is that when I look to the US health service it achieves the unlikely feat of making me thankful for the NHS!
Don't you think that high taxes and MAJOR investment (not half-hearted New Labour investment) as in Scandinavia would be a better way to go? After all, they have phenomenal health services. Nobody complains about high taxation because the service is guaranteed to be excellent so you need never go private.
Posted by: Alex Cooke at August 11, 2007 02:20 PM