What should the NHS not fund?

[Username721]

Saw a thread on IVF for lesbians and some people felt that IVF should not be for anyone on the NHS. So it got me thinking.

Is there anything you feel should be exclusively private treatment? The ones often debated are things like weight loss surgery, cosmetic procedures, treatment for avoidable illness such as smoking-induced ones, liver failure through alcohol abuse, drug rehabilitation…

Thoughts?

I'm wouldn't be specific about things which shouldn't be available. I think and have often said that you should see an "invoice" of how much your treatment / appointment / whatever costs or it should be far more publicly available how much those things cost.

I often hear "well I paid my tax / NI all my life" without considering how much they've "put it" compared to how much you take (if you include, education, health, etc) and an entitlement that the nhs should pay for e.g transport so they don't have to pay for a taxi to an appointment. When in fact you have to earn a pretty high amount on average to be a net contributor.

It's more that I think people need to be more aware of how much the healthcare they access cost. GPs, as an example, get paid £160ish per registered patient. But a GP appt costs about £40 approx per person. So if you have more than 4 GP appointments per year, you've cost more than your GP is funded for, an average prescription cost is another £30 ish. Add that up and it doesn't take much to be costing the NHS a fair amount for what is effectively basic expected healthcare.

That doesn't mean that I think people should be charged / things shouldn't be funded, but I do think we all need to be much more aware of how much healthcare actually costs.

Drugs....the number of people who get their (free) meds every month and then don't use them...the waste is horrendous! Stop stockpiling medications.
Free paracetamol! It's 35p a box!!!!

Drunks in A&E.

Unnecessary orthodentistry - 5-6 year wait lists in some areas now for teenagers braces

Correction surgery when people go private abroad...and it goes wrong

Unnecessary antibiotics!

DNA"s!

Smoking & Obesity

Anything non- medical. For example transport to and from hospital which costs millions.

Anything not medically necessary. At least not until there are no backlogs.

Totally agree!

Heroic efforts to keep the elderly alive. We are struggling with an aging population. The drain on the NHS, bed blocking, repeat admissions - we are keeping people alive to use more resources to keep them alive.

it’s not dinghy people, it’s old people.

would also sort the pension crisis. Ditto social care.

@golden1989 @Sarahcoggles

100 percent right on this one. A couple who are not able to conceive a baby naturally is truly heartbreaking and soul destroying. IVF should obviously have criteria and should be available on the NHS. Those saying no I wonder if they are referring to lesbian women having IVF or just IVF for everyone should be stopped

I'm intrigued if those who don't agree with IVF being NHS funded have children they conceived without any issues? I have a hunch that's generally the case.

IVF if you’re then going to rely on benefits

Yes 🙌

Not funding IVF is always a suggestion put forward by people who conceived easily.

I do understand what an intense issue this is for many women. However, I'm one of those who couldn't carry full-term and have no children. I 'lost' six pregnancies. I don't agree that having a child is necessary or that fertility treatments should be NHS-funded. I turned them down, if you must know.

The posts about this in conjunction with maternity care are batshit! If your fertility treatment's successful, you'll need those too, so your baby will be three times more expensive than the others. Maternity care keeps a woman and a child alive. Fertility treatments don't, hurtful as that fact can be.

But IVF can bring money to the economy. Those babies will mostly go on to pay taxes all their life. So really IVF is probably much more cost effective than treating terminal cancer. If NICE were weighing up if it’s cost effective in the way they weigh up cancer treatments it would probably be a big fat yes.
see how ridiculous it is deciding what to pay for or not. You would have to be unemotional and calculate how cost effective it is to pay for that treatment. Most posters on here are basing it on emotions.

Health care should not be a game of top trumps, it is not a race to the bottom. As PP’s have mentioned, if we were to look at people as numbers, surely denying elderly people access to treatments that they won’t be around long enough to see the benefits of would be more beneficial to the NHS than revoking GRS. Is that something you would consider? Or does Betty tacking on a couple of extra years trump everyone else?

@MayThe4th I don't think many trusts fund 3 cycles of IVF.

The issue isn't that people are in " different queues". The issue is a complete lack of funds and deciding where the money goes. IE children's cancer treatment or trans surgery. You choose where do you want to spend the cash??? Cure a 3 year old with leukemia with a 90% cure rate with the right treatment or chop of a chaps willy so he can claim he is a women plus have a lifetime of urology issues??? Go on be honest where do you want to spend that money.
In reality that 3 year will always get the treatment so money has to be reduced elsewhere and other services do need to be cut.

Wow, what a delight you are. I'm sure all the thousands of people every year who conceive their baby this way, might disagree. Unless you have ever had infertility problems, you have no right to judge

Going by your rationale, how about we stop any and all NHS care for the over 80s, as they've "had their time"?

Gender medications and surgeries, but I would want quality psychiatric care to be funded through NHS.

IVF. Weight loss surgeries with some exceptions. Vanity cosmetic surgeries (not sure NHS do these, anyway?) Acupuncture.

@inky1991 i certainly think there’s a case for not unnecessarily prolonging the life of the elderly yes. They use a disproportionate amount of NHS resources to stay alive to then use even more NHS resources

Presume you won't be funding Viagra either......

The point we're all missing though is the waste. If it wasn't for the dreadful waste of time spent doing pointless things in long winded ways (ancient IT) by departments with no real meaning none of this debate would be needed.

I say this as a retired senior NHS manager. Believe me it's just dreadful.

👏👏👏

But of course if there are limited resources, some conditions will 'trump' others.

Absolutely not.

Boob jobs - except for reconstruction surgery after cancer.

Having different cup sizes is a cosmetic issue and should be self funded.

Weight loss surgery can actually be a life or death situation and the reason it is funded is that it is cost effective when offset against the cost to the NHS of obesity related illnesses. It saves the NHS money.

You can’t run the NHS on the notion of underserving v deserving.