to think the NHS can't charge for drunk treatment without charging for other self inflicted

[suziepra]

There is huge support for charging drunk people for a and e. I think this is being launched in Ireland.

I'm tee total but I don't agree with this as it is unfair just to pick on people that drink. Stats have been showing that young people drink less than ever these days.

Why should someone that has chosen to play a contact sport like rugby get free treatment if the drunks have to pay? What about someone who has chosen to live on junk for decades that has obesity treatment?

CAN'T do shades of grey I mean -arghh.

The difference is obvious.

I am an ex A&E nurse so not talking out of my arse.

Obese people who are diabetic (risk factor) are sick

Smokers with emphysema are sick

Obese smokers who have a heart attack are sick

Alcoholics who are vomiting blood and have liver disease are sick

Drunks who use A&E as somewhere to vomit and piss themselves and cause shit loads of aggro and sober up in are NOT SICK

Sickening yes, but not sick.

Its all very well say get details off the drunk person and then take money off them from benefits/wages etc but what if they refuse to give them do you refused to treat them or keep them in until they do and if so who is responsible for babysitting them until they give their details and not run off? My cousins son who is seven and was born in newzealand and lives in Australia , comes to england every couple of years with my cousin to visit his grandparents aunties,cousins for however long his summer holidays are last time he had a bad ear infection my cousin took him to his grandparents gp and he was seen and given antibiotics now fair enough my cousin had too pay for his treatment but if they had gone to a and e who would have enforced my cousin paying for his treatment?

But those drunks could well be alcholic who are SICK.

Or they could have had their drinks spiked and are SICK

It is't black and white at all

Drunks who use A&E as somewhere to vomit and piss themselves and cause shit loads of aggro and sober up in are NOT SICK
Sickening yes, but not sick.

The problem is that the Government isn't capable of creating a ruleset that would affect them & not the cases mentioned above. They'll draw the line with "Drunk" on one side & "Sober" on the other.

Surely there are already systems in place to deal with the troublemakers - you call the Police.

Now if they're busy - that's a different argument. Ministers need to be dealing with that rather than removing a whole group of people from the welfare system....

Whether they are sick or not is actually beside the point.

The point is they need treatment. If they do not go to A & E for fear of being charged (which could include individuals who are not trouble making drunks but are afraid of being labelled as such), then this could endanger their life. And you may have situations where individuals have this decision made for them by friends/family because they themselves are incapacitated and unable to do so for themselves.

Anything that prevents someone who needs medical assistance from seeking it, is therefore a bad thing. Regardless of the reasons behind their need for that medical assistance.

The problem is that the Government isn't capable of creating a ruleset that would affect them & not the cases mentioned above. They'll draw the line with "Drunk" on one side & "Sober" on the other.

Can we just make it clear here again, that this is NOT 'the government' suggesting this, but that idiot Poots, who only thankfully only has influence in NI.

A man who has recently been criticised for not being able to control the budget of his own department. By someone in his OWN party.

Please google, Edwin Poots - gay marriage, gay blood donation, gay adoption, Single parent adoption, charging women for caesareans, abortion...

He is COMPLETELY out of step with policy in England, Wales and Scotland on a number of issues.

It will never work as there are no definites in these things; how do you define drunk? Is it a blood level? Is it how you act? Or do aptitude tests? What about if you are on other meds so the effects are stronger at lower levels?

None of these things are cast iron so this idea is a nightmare even before you think about how to manage the charging without spending more in admin and collection than it raises

The vast majority are binge drinkers who have decided to have a Friday night piss up. The vast majority are not sick just drunk. A few may be alcoholics but A&E is not a treatment centre for alcoholism. There are plenty of them and they are self referral. The majority don't self refer sadly. Alcoholism is an illness but drunkeness isn't. A&E isn't the
place. Drink spiking is pretty rare and is mostly too much alcohol in someone not used to it.

We regularly called the police. So lovely for small children and no. Drunks to see the unedifying spectacle of a grown man pissing I. The corner of a cubicle. Drunkenness is not a sickness. They need somewhere to sober up safely. A drunk tank is not a bad idea. Observed until they sobered up then charged for the bed they occupied.

The government wouldn't have to draw the line between drunk and sober...that's what doctors do every night! They wouldn't be removed from the welfare system, their heads would still be stitched, they would be removed to a more suitable area and charged for the privilege of being watched over.

Someone who is drunk but aware enough to not go to A&E because they would be charged is not drunk enough to be going there in the first place. Medical assistance as in a drunken fall is outside this discussion because it is a medical need. Sobering up isn't.

I don't think I'm understanding correctly.

So what if you are drunk and get randomly punched in the face?

What if you are drunk and a car mounts the pavement and hits you?

People fall over and injure themselves all the time when sober.

What are the charging rules?

I have misunderstood. We're talking drunk tanks aren't we?

Drunks who are injured get treated, they always would be treated. Any indication of serious injury (personally triaged an drunk with a broken neck!) is treated.

Pissheads who cause scenes, pee themselves, vomit everywhere (we had to clean it up) should go elsewhere (drunk tanks if necessary) and should pay for the privilege of a bed to sleep in and care while they do.

The reality is teenagers with appendicitis, children with fevers, adults with asthma and much much more are made to wait, sometimes in pain and conditions maybe deteriorating while nurses and doctors time is taken up with assessing drinks just to make sure they don't have serious illnesses. Invariably not.

Why on earth are we trying to deal with the 'problem' at the end of the process anyway?

The whole idea is flawed simply because it doesn't tackle the issue at source - where and why the binge drinking is taking place. Its those who make profit from it who should be penalised not the general population...

No way whatsoever of enforcing this fairly. A few years back I was in a club, couldn't see in the dark and stepped on a broken glass, because I had strappy shoes on it sliced my foot open and needed to be seen on a&e. What difference would it have made if I'd had a few drinks, or if I'd just had lemonade, it was an accident. Where would be the line? Blood alcohol levels...probably costing more to administer than would be recouped.

It's far too difficult to police because where do you draw the line? A significant proportion of cancers, plus diseases like diabetes, hypertension etc. are lifestyle related- i.e. people drink, smoke or eat too much and exercise too little. If we all only drank water and ate 2000 calories of unprocessed food a day before going for a nice walk, undoubtedly waiting lists would be way shorter, if they existed at all. Then there are sports injuries- are some sports, such as skiing, rugby etc. reckless? I have (miraculously) never had a drinking injury but did break my foot in a trail race. Some people might argue that running down a mountain in the dark and rain for fun is just bloody stupid and I deserve all I get. They might have a point, but at the same time I pay taxes, so aren't I entitled to get patched up now and again?

isnt every thing almost self inflicted? foot cut playing in garden - could have worn shoe, pregnant, vasecomty, fat, too thin, heart problems caused by bad diet same a myriad of other stuff?

I would imagine that at least 50% of A&E stories read like something out of the Darwin awards so yes, high percentage of avoidable injuries. I guess why drunks get focused on is that they combine avoidable injury with obnoxious behaviour whereas at least the guy who sliced his thumb off whilst cutting an apple with a non serated knife probably won't vomit on or punch you.

The clear answer is that people are only charged the 2nd time they come in due to inebriation. I think a charge is a good idea. In the same way, people should not be charged for the GP but I do think that they should be charged a tenner if they don't show up. It's outrageous if people make an appointment and don't show up. 3 strikes and they're out. If someone fails to show up 3 times and has 30 pounds debt, they're not allowed access GP until it's paid. My dentist operates along those lines except they only give you one chance!

The clear answer is that people are only charged the 2nd time they come in due to inebriation.

What timescale? 2 a Year, 10 Years, Life?

Did you read the posts above reference different circumstances? Who decides what "inebriated" is?

I should imagine you get a fair few troublemakers that are stone cold sober - ignore them?

There are laws & rules in place already - the police can deal with drunks, with aggressive people & with urination. If more police are needed, then that is what should be focussed on...

yes, our dentist cancels referrals if you do not attend, so when ds was in hospital with double pneumonia, and dh forgot to call to cancel his appointment, he had to start the referral process again, lengthening the wait for tooth extraction by months.

It was mentioned in NI and the Health Minister thought it sounded like a good idea but considered he's as thick as champ to begin with, I don't think the idea has legs at all.

Ah yes, Poots. He's a medical miracle you know...a post OP brain donor maintaining a semblance of functionality.

The man is a reactionary numpty who lacks the wit he was born with. Please don't take his support as a sign the scheme is anything other than ill conceived.

He should concentrate on running his department with even the idea of efficiency, instead of using public money to harass gay people and the Marie Stopes clinic.

"Gay Blood". That was him.

Fucking space cadet.

RedToothBrush Poots is out of step with England, Wales and Scotland.

So?

He is a Minister in NI. How do his opinions go down there?

He sounds like an arsehole to me, but I don't vote there, I vote in England, and my opinion of him does not matter.

His opinions don't go down too well in N Ireland either, he is widely thought to be a bit thick and more than a bit incompetent.

I think the issue of drunk people in A&E doesn't need picking out as a separate issue. Surely it's just an extension of the issue of people going to A&E who don't belong there? Like somebody going to A&E because they've got a headache, or a splinter, somebody who's just drunk (with nothing else wrong with them), is just wasting NHS time & money by using the wrong service.

So we just need to tackle that issue as a whole. I know there's been attempts to recently, but only by trying to advertise the different places you can go for treatment (GP, walk-in centre, pharmacist etc). Maybe when people arrive & are triaged they could actually just be told that it's not appropriate for them to be in A&E with that issue, as it is neither an Accident nor an Emergency, & they need to go to their GP or wherever, then just turn them away.

I think maybe then the police won't be terribly happy as then the hospital is basically kicking drunk people back out onto the streets, but to be brutally honest that's their problem - the person has not had an accident or an emergency, so doesn't belong in A&E, wasting the hospital's resources ( & it might even lower the instances of ambulances being called as a way of handling drunken behaviour!) So then the police may want to look into drunk tanks, as has been suggested.