NHS reforms and private competition.
Poll: NHS reforms and private competition.
Total Members Polled: 35
Discussion
Pulse said:
Aren't all parts of the NHS (in fact any public organisation) bound by the EU Directives?
No competition laws have never applied to the NHS, but they will now.As far as I can tell It will mean a bad hospital that no doctor wants to send patients to can use the law to gain business.
NoNeed said:
Pulse said:
Aren't all parts of the NHS (in fact any public organisation) bound by the EU Directives?
No competition laws have never applied to the NHS, but they will now.As far as I can tell It will mean a bad hospital that no doctor wants to send patients to can use the law to gain business.
Going by some hospitals like Papworth, they seem to have go hand in hand with research companies (ie Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline) with very good results. Would it not be possible to do the same in other parts?
I am still thinking that in 20 - 30 years time (or sooner?) that compulsive medical insurance will become everyday life.
I am still thinking that in 20 - 30 years time (or sooner?) that compulsive medical insurance will become everyday life.
Pulse said:
NoNeed said:
Pulse said:
Aren't all parts of the NHS (in fact any public organisation) bound by the EU Directives?
No competition laws have never applied to the NHS, but they will now.As far as I can tell It will mean a bad hospital that no doctor wants to send patients to can use the law to gain business.
Costs of medical care in Europe and the US are going to rocket up, but further privatization will help keep them low here in the UK (At least for the time being), through competition pushing the price down, or stopping them rising as quickly as they would do so otherwise. Thankfully we won't go as far as the US, where they're so healthcare-happy that many people are over-treated for the sake of the hospitals.
But essentially, by 2020 we will have minor charges for doctors visits and higher prescription charges, simply because tax revenues will only go so far.
It's the baby-boomers. You're all bloody retiring and demanding pensions, services and expensive healthcare!
But, thankfully, Britain seems to be fairly well placed to cope with the up coming demographic crisis, according to several books i've read... And The Economist seems to hint at it.
But essentially, by 2020 we will have minor charges for doctors visits and higher prescription charges, simply because tax revenues will only go so far.
It's the baby-boomers. You're all bloody retiring and demanding pensions, services and expensive healthcare!
But, thankfully, Britain seems to be fairly well placed to cope with the up coming demographic crisis, according to several books i've read... And The Economist seems to hint at it.
F93 said:
Costs of medical care in Europe and the US are going to rocket up, but further privatization will help keep them low here in the UK
To an extent. I think it's short-sighted to think that privatising will solve everything, and there are certain aspects that would benefit from being kept 'NHS'. Rushing into this will only get us into trouble, in my opinion.F93 said:
Costs of medical care in Europe and the US are going to rocket up, but further privatization will help keep them low here in the UK (At least for the time being), through competition pushing the price down, or stopping them rising as quickly as they would do so otherwise. Thankfully we won't go as far as the US, where they're so healthcare-happy that many people are over-treated for the sake of the hospitals.
But essentially, by 2020 we will have minor charges for doctors visits and higher prescription charges, simply because tax revenues will only go so far.
It's the baby-boomers. You're all bloody retiring and demanding pensions, services and expensive healthcare!
But, thankfully, Britain seems to be fairly well placed to cope with the up coming demographic crisis, according to several books i've read... And The Economist seems to hint at it.
just out of interest on what do you base this opinion on? I'd be interested to hear how privatisation of healthcare in the UK is going to keep costs down, when the same private enterprise in the US is going to have sky rocketing costsBut essentially, by 2020 we will have minor charges for doctors visits and higher prescription charges, simply because tax revenues will only go so far.
It's the baby-boomers. You're all bloody retiring and demanding pensions, services and expensive healthcare!
But, thankfully, Britain seems to be fairly well placed to cope with the up coming demographic crisis, according to several books i've read... And The Economist seems to hint at it.
Pulse said:
To an extent. I think it's short-sighted to think that privatising will solve everything, and there are certain aspects that would benefit from being kept 'NHS'. Rushing into this will only get us into trouble, in my opinion.
Of course, the conservatives might rush into it to try and get it done by 2015, and then discredit the whole notion of privatization, then Labour might come in in 2015 and reverse the whole program blindly or start another haphazard reform, then along comes another budget problem. sawman said:
just out of interest on what do you base this opinion on? I'd be interested to hear how privatisation of healthcare in the UK is going to keep costs down, when the same private enterprise in the US is going to have sky rocketing costs
This. Not to be underestimated is the wealth of experience already in the NHS; both in the commissioners and the providers.By privatising both (which is what is effectively happening), you lose not only the valuable experience, but the benefits associated with that experience (e.g. No set-up costs for 'knowledge', etc) - If that makes sense. You are effectively creating an entire health system where the blind will lead the blind, potentially.
F93 said:
f course, the conservatives might rush into it to try and get it done by 2015, and then discredit the whole notion of privatization, then Labour might come in in 2015 and reverse the whole program blindly or start another haphazard reform, then along comes another budget problem.
And this. The problem is, the NHS is never left alone, so never actually has the chance to develop into something good, let alone excellent. We'll get to the point where everything has been set up again, at huge cost, and then just reverse it.rs1952 said:
Personally I don't give a toss about how its managed and who manages it provided that it is done efficiently and cost-effectively, and they can carry out the necessary treatment when I put myself in for repairs 
I dont really understand why anyone would think differently to this really. There's far, far too much politics involved in the operation of the NHS. And another thing. I wish people would stop comparing what could become of the NHS to the US. It gets on my f
king nerves.In America, the fact it's healthcare system is entirely private and the government insures only the children and elderly means health care and health care related taxes are going up.
This is because it's insurance providers who bear the cost. They of course do charge higher premiums, but not everyone has healthcare insurance thus prices go up but there isn't much pressure to bring them down. Competition brings it down to some extent (in 'real terms) and innovations do. But innovations are expensive.
But healthcare costs are going to go up a great deal in America because of their own baby-boom generation retiring and the fact that their system is entirely (note, entirely) profit driven and can rack up prices a great deal, and Congress can't do that much to push them down, and people can't say 'pfft i'll go somewhere else' because, it's health insurance, you can't quickly change provider. Also, if your child is ill in America they are covered by Federal insurance. This means that as soon as they get ill, the hospital can say they need about four hundred different expensive pills to function (Which is why Americans are on meds on the time and why there are so many orthodontists in the US) and greatly over charge the US government, thus causing taxes to have to increase to cover the loss.
However, healthcare costs traditionally have been lower in Europe and the UK (Japan too) because if it starts to be too expensive, voters pressure their governments to make their healthcare sectors more efficient and cheaper to run. This has generally kept costs stable and not spiraling upwards. However now, with the baby-boomer generation retiring and a generation of baby-bust, there's a massive strain about to be put on the system over the next 20 years as several million extra people retire and demand expensive healthcare.
Competition helps in this case, simply because sometimes private healthcare providers will be able to do an operation cheaper than the NHS can. This is likely because the NHS is ludicrously inefficient and vastly over-regulated to ever function efficiently. Thus, competition is essentially meant to help bring healthcare costs down, trying to get things done by the lowest bidder (out of NHS or several private providers) to lower costs. Essentially, they're not trying to make the NHS more skimpy or less providing, they're simply trying to save as much money as they can, without withdrawing all the beloved health and safety crap.
If they did make the NHS more efficient it would run better and cheaper, but instead they can never fire anyone no matter how negligent or stupid.
Because of the baby-boom generation retiring and being followed by a much smaller generation of tax paying citizens, this means costs in all countries are going to go up, no matter what happens. However, I can see why the conservatives think that a bit of competition and private sector involvement will help keep the rises in cost as low as possible.
Also, healthcare costs will increase exponentially in some sense, simply because elderly people demand a greater deal (compared to normal) of more expensive healthcare (compared to normal). This means that no matter the efficiency it'll be more expensive. But because the generation after (the taxpayers) is smaller, they have to give a massively greater amount of care with considerably less money.
This is because it's insurance providers who bear the cost. They of course do charge higher premiums, but not everyone has healthcare insurance thus prices go up but there isn't much pressure to bring them down. Competition brings it down to some extent (in 'real terms) and innovations do. But innovations are expensive.
But healthcare costs are going to go up a great deal in America because of their own baby-boom generation retiring and the fact that their system is entirely (note, entirely) profit driven and can rack up prices a great deal, and Congress can't do that much to push them down, and people can't say 'pfft i'll go somewhere else' because, it's health insurance, you can't quickly change provider. Also, if your child is ill in America they are covered by Federal insurance. This means that as soon as they get ill, the hospital can say they need about four hundred different expensive pills to function (Which is why Americans are on meds on the time and why there are so many orthodontists in the US) and greatly over charge the US government, thus causing taxes to have to increase to cover the loss.
However, healthcare costs traditionally have been lower in Europe and the UK (Japan too) because if it starts to be too expensive, voters pressure their governments to make their healthcare sectors more efficient and cheaper to run. This has generally kept costs stable and not spiraling upwards. However now, with the baby-boomer generation retiring and a generation of baby-bust, there's a massive strain about to be put on the system over the next 20 years as several million extra people retire and demand expensive healthcare.
Competition helps in this case, simply because sometimes private healthcare providers will be able to do an operation cheaper than the NHS can. This is likely because the NHS is ludicrously inefficient and vastly over-regulated to ever function efficiently. Thus, competition is essentially meant to help bring healthcare costs down, trying to get things done by the lowest bidder (out of NHS or several private providers) to lower costs. Essentially, they're not trying to make the NHS more skimpy or less providing, they're simply trying to save as much money as they can, without withdrawing all the beloved health and safety crap.
If they did make the NHS more efficient it would run better and cheaper, but instead they can never fire anyone no matter how negligent or stupid.
Because of the baby-boom generation retiring and being followed by a much smaller generation of tax paying citizens, this means costs in all countries are going to go up, no matter what happens. However, I can see why the conservatives think that a bit of competition and private sector involvement will help keep the rises in cost as low as possible.
Also, healthcare costs will increase exponentially in some sense, simply because elderly people demand a greater deal (compared to normal) of more expensive healthcare (compared to normal). This means that no matter the efficiency it'll be more expensive. But because the generation after (the taxpayers) is smaller, they have to give a massively greater amount of care with considerably less money.
Edited by F93 on Thursday 17th March 23:33
Edited by F93 on Thursday 17th March 23:36
Aside from the commissioning/ provider issues (and in my mind there are many ways this could go badly wrong and some where it may have positives) One thing that occurred to me a while ago was that with the disbanding of PCT's what will happen to the real estate that PCT's own. For those who werent aware PCTs across the country hold a huge portfolio of real estate, this includes cottage hospitals, intermediate care centres, health centres (where GP practices often pay rent to the PCT for their office space) elderly care facilities, this list goes on. Will the government retain this asset and rent it out to providers, of flog it off in a quick cash grab, leaving private organisations to fill the gaps?
sawman said:
Aside from the commissioning/ provider issues (and in my mind there are many ways this could go badly wrong and some where it may have positives) One thing that occurred to me a while ago was that with the disbanding of PCT's what will happen to the real estate that PCT's own. For those who werent aware PCTs across the country hold a huge portfolio of real estate, this includes cottage hospitals, intermediate care centres, health centres (where GP practices often pay rent to the PCT for their office space) elderly care facilities, this list goes on. Will the government retain this asset and rent it out to providers, of flog it off in a quick cash grab, leaving private organisations to fill the gaps?
I would imagine a large percentage of those assets are in fact long-term PFI liabilities. So, if anything the Govt may at best sub-lease portions. But the PFI debt isn't going anywhere, fast.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff