Is this a completely bonkers U-turn by the NHS?

[HappySecret]

My faster is well and truly flabbered. Can this be in any way reasonable? Justifiable?

From today's Times:

Bumping because I'd love to hear from anyone who knows anything about this.

I guess it means they'd hit their targets more easily? TBH the NHS in England is fucked, and this is just it's deaht throws we are seeing.

I don't think the NHS has many options. I don't think they would choose to do this if there were other options that would actually be beneficial to anyone. The NHS is on its arse, I don't think some people actually realise just how bad things are for the NHS at the moment.

The system is chronically underfunded. Only by applying a variety of approaches to rationing care (insisting on weight-loss for bariatric surgery, restricting IVF rounds, enforcing minimum waiting times etc) have they managed to stave-off total collapse.

NHS providers are anticipating a shortfall of AT LEAST £1.5 billion pounds this years, and the year end position is likely to be much worse. Unless we're willing to pay more, the system will collapse very soon.

This is already the most efficient healthcare system in the developed world; there's no more fat to trim.

The Tories are quite literally going to kill of the NHS, we’ll end up back in a situation where the rich can access healthcare and everyone else can’t. It’s terrifying.

OFF not of, my phone is at it today

I have no idea why this has been brought it and how it would save money. Maybe something to do with making patients try physio or other therapies first to see if some patients don't need the operation?? The NHS is going downhill. There is going to be a huge crisis in a few years time due to the lack of nurses and midwives bursary there will be no staff!! Hunt has destroyed the NHS

This snip from a paper isn't clear. Aren't they saying they are planning to reduce wait times for basic operations, because if they leave people hanging on the operations (hip, knee etc) are less successful (1) because people suffer longer and need more intervention from eg carers (2) the operations themselves get more complex and the patient needs more recovery time/caring? We already have this in our area where the NHS Trust contracts out basic operations to the private sector and have been doing so for 10 years. What I can't understand is the economics of this, since the surgeons and anaesthetists doing the work are often the same ones who'd operate under the NHS. I can see that a small private hospital can be more effficient (because it's specialising and doesn't have to bump operations because acute cases come in and take precedence over beds etc). Perhaps someone who knows this better could fill us in?

Never seems efficient when I deal with it.

Lost notes
Failure to notify people apts have been cancelled
Failure to order correct blood tests
Misdiagnosis
Dirty hospitals
Poor communication
Operations not available (grommets and tobsils)
Poor post natal care when there were more staff than women
Most recently an ed not knowing their own protocols 're MH assessment and unnecessarily spending £££'s on admission for a next day assessment when it could be undertaken in the ed by staff on their premises.

Going back 25 years here not just recently. It's brought about it's own death throw in my opinion and a Continental system can't come soon enough for me and mine.

Would the nhs failing really be such a terrible thing...? I'm not so sure

To explain a bit more. I think there's a lot of scaremongering about with regards to the NHS and what will happen if free healthcare is abolished. I really don't think it has to be all or nothing, ie, totally free or a system where only millionaires can access healthcare. There are many, many models of healthcare all over the world. Some work well. Some are terrible. But I don't think free healthcare (or free at point of use) is feasible. Especially on the scale as it is now. It went from providing basic lifesaving treatment to dealing with everything, from MH services to gastric bands and IVF. I just think it's at a point now where abolishing it and re shuffling into a new system can only be a good thing.

I think it'd be pretty terrible for people on low incomes/benefits who could face the choice between shelling out £££'s for life saving treatment or feeding their kids.

Ah, x-post Cactai.

Is there any reason why it has to be that way, though?
Or that there couldn't be means tested gov insurance (for example)?
Or free healthcare if you earn under xy or claim benefits...?
There seems to be this whole idea that if it isn't free everyone who is on a low or lowish income will suddenly be starving if their kid needs antibiotics or something. That isn't the case in much of the world that has some form of paid for (not necessarily private) healthcare.

Bet this is already happening unofficially and this is just the organisations coming out and saying it.

Waiting times, staffing levels and the quality of many services are shocking IMO.

studies show that all alternative funding models cost much more.

That isn't the case in much of the world that has some form of paid for (not necessarily private) healthcare

Google the US system. They will literally boot someone in a coma out of a hospital if their insurance doesn’t pay out.

I agree to some extent of your further post.

There needs to be a reshuffle and prioritisation throughout the system rather than complete abolishment.

I'm well versed in the failings of the US system (lived in the US for a few years and have a parent there). But not all healthcare systems are like that. No system is perfect but there is a world and a half between the US system (which I agree is absolutely awful) and a free at the point of use system.

No system is perfect but there is a world and a half between the US system (which I agree is absolutely awful) and a free at the point of use system

I completely agree, however I have no faith whatsoever that this government or any Tory government would implement anything but a US style system where money is all powerful.

and USA (self-pay/insured, with (very) limited exceptions)

I work in the US healthcare system. It's certain got it's problems, but it's not quite as draconian as all that.

Medical Coverage Source by State

35% of the population has govenment provided medical insurance (Medicare, Medicaid or "other public), 49% has employer provided, 7% have individual policies and 9% are uninsured. The coverage situation has improved considerably since Obamacare passed.

Cactai have I picked you up wrong, or are you meaning to imply that MH services shouldn't be provided free of charge?

Would the nhs failing really be such a terrible thing...? I'm not so sure
Well yes if you have a crumbling NHS that clearky cannot cope with what it’s supposed to do and is letting people down on a regular basis, then maybe you have a point.

But then if you look how it was running befire the Tories started to introduce cuts, look at how other system in Europe are working, then maybe no. Really we should be able to do it too, as a developed country.

And then no NHS, what does it mean? Private healthcare only? Who is going to be able to afford that? And who isn’t?
Would it be a terrible th8ng to leave people dying or quickly declin8ng due to the lack of care (because they can’t pay said private insurrance or their illness isn’t covered etc - see the US for that)?
Well seeing that we already have 120.000 people who have died from improper/lack of care (that’s the size of a small town!!), this gives us an idea of how many more people would dead or in pain.
Would it be a terrible thing? Well up to you. Are you happy to say that you supported a decision that lead to the premature death of so many people? I’m not.