Britain begins outsourcing health care — to the patients

Britain’s ailing national health care system continues to try to heal itself, usually at patient’s expense. I don’t know about you, but this proposal doesn’t strike me as something that’s going to result in improved health care:

Millions of people with arthritis, asthma and even heart failure will be urged to treat themselves as part of a Government plan to save billions of pounds from the NHS budget.

Instead of going to hospital or consulting a doctor, patients will be encouraged to carry out “self care” as the Department of Health (DoH) tries to meet Treasury targets to curb spending.

The guidelines could mean people with chronic conditions:

• Monitoring their own heart activity, blood pressure and lung capacity using equipment installed in the home

• Reporting medical information to doctors remotely by telephone or computer

• Administering their own drugs and other treatment to “manage pain” and assessing the significance of changes in their condition

• Using relaxation techniques to relieve stress and avoid “panic” visits to emergency wards.

Gordon Brown hinted at the new policy in a message to NHS staff yesterday, promising a service that “gives all of those with long-term or chronic conditions the choice of greater support, information and advice, allowing them to play a far more active role in managing their own condition”.

The Prime Minister claimed the self-care agenda was about increasing patient choice and “personalised” services.

Government happy talk notwithstanding, a lot of Brits are also suspicion that this is an Orwellian plan where all patients are equal, but some are less equal than others:

But an internal Government document seen by The Daily Telegraph makes clear that the policy is a money-saving measure, a key plank of DoH plans to cut costs.

Critics claimed the plan would provide doctors with an excuse for ignoring the elderly or those with debilitating, but not life-threatening long-term conditions, and would not work without significant investment in community health services.

The Arthritis Research Campaign said it risked providing health managers with “an excuse for neglecting elderly patients”.

Jane Tadman, a spokesman for the charity, said: “Arthritis is already too low down the priority list and the fact that this is being mooted as a money-saving measure is very worrying.

“Some GPs don’t take arthritis seriously enough, and the result of this could be to give them another excuse to tell arthritis patients just to go away and take their tablets.”

The Patients’ Association welcomed more moves to empower patients, but warned against using self-care systems to save money.

“We are all for better-informed patients,” said Katherine Murphy, a spokesman. “But it is a concern that financial pressures will take precedence over clinical needs.”

Peter Weissberg, the medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “People affected by heart disease need specialist care. Whilst we support changes that empower people to look after their own health, we would be very concerned if they led to any reduction in the availability or quality of expert care for those who need it.”

You really can’t blame the government, though, for this somewhat inane proposal. What we’re seeing is the inevitably of nationalized health care.  For a long time, Europeans enjoyed a strong economy (in England, aided by Thatcher’s reforms), and mainland Europe especially benefited, for many years, from the American military presence that removed Europe’s obligation to put money into its own defense infrastructure. A failing health care service is also probably inevitable when you have a declining (that is, shrinking and aging) native work population, and an influx of immigrants who rely on the system but either don’t work or work in such low paying jobs that they can contribute little to the system on which they rely. In other words, the government is doing its best to deal with a whole bunch of economic chickens coming home to roost.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Gotta love the parasite programs. Everything is good when the host is healthy. But when the host starts getting sick cause of the parasite, then things must be sacrificed for the health of the parasite.

  2. says

    Btw, there’s a jack load of people that like the idea of free healthcare and believe that in Europe it is working.

    Which just goes to show you that facts are far less important than having a good propaganda apparatus to inform the populace.

  3. rockdalian says

    Then there is this story titled “Smokers, drinkers and the obese beware: keep fit or risk losing NHS care” in the Daily Mail @http://tinyurl.com/2wdm4k.

    The majority of commenters are against the plan. This is the best of the comments.

    “Under this new system, the values are false in who they select as being worthy of medical help. Take this scenario: a paedophile may well be a non-smoking teetotaller who attends the gym daily. His victims may well develop eating disorders or smoking habits because of the damage he has done to them. Yet they will be deemed unworthy of NHS care and treatment whereas he will be able to access all the benefits denied to his victims. Under this proposed system this WILL undoubtedly happen. People become obese or develop addictions for many reasons, and to force them to struggle on without help is completely barbaric. These social ideas will take us back to the Dark Ages.

    – Richard N, Greensborough, Australia”

    I read this at the blog of James Hudnall and the comment from Jim Brocius

  4. says

    No worries about embedding. I cheat and use my blog posting tool to embed, and then copy the text and paste it in comments. There’s fairly easy code, but I’ve just never bothered to memorize it, and I don’t think anyone here minds links that aren’t hyperlinked to text.

  5. Al says

    Just to take this Wonderland plan of health care further down the rabbit hole, if a self-monitoring patient miss reads his instrumentation, is he guilty of malpractice? And if so, does the NHS remove health benefits and punishment?
    Al

  6. Marguerite says

    Our son has already encountered this phenomenon under a major health care provider in the good old US of A. Upon a rather cursory exam, the HCP (formerly known as doctor) asked him ‘Is this something you could live with?’ While his medical issue was not life-threatening he was relieved to see that upon leaving the clinic he WAS still in the US and could probably find a doctor who was interested in treating his medical condition.

  7. Jose says

    Before I left the UK 15 years ago, there was a big media flap about the NHS providing tattoo removal at no cost. One proponent stated there was nothing wrong with removing a tattoo, possibly the result of a single drunken lapse of judgment, compared to treating lung cancer and emphysema sufferers, following years of willful disregard to the known dangers of smoking.

    No doubt the non-smoking and non-tattooed tax payers have been footing the bill for all self induced conditions to the point where the NHS has to cut services anywhere else it can.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don’t provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers’ wages, with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan. The liberal-leaning plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations. My Way News – House bill would make health care a right Yep, let;’s follow other countries where it is not working there….. just one story of many…..Bookworm Room

Leave a Reply