@highdaysandholudays
Yes, there have always been a lot of hoops in both primary and secondary care. Free at point of need care has many advantages, but it does (of necessity) create a need to heavily regulate what is provided and when, to triage and other measures to control costs. Or pay a lot more per head than we do (though there is a lot of arguments about inefficiency etc too-but I think that is not the biggest factor in our difficulties).
One way of controlling costs is to try to ensure that the most cost-effective formulation of a medication is used, for example, so that means that if there is a cheap (but perhaps slightly inconvenient) way of giving a medication and doing it that way is just as effective then that is what every prescriber is asked to do.
So, as an example here the omeprazole capsules can be opened and contents dissolved in water with this given to the child. The capsules cost 87p for 28 capsules (at least a month for most children) vs the liquid suspension (more convenient for parents to give, perhaps arguably less able to get dosage wrong- though I think with proper explanation that is not likely for the majority of parents) is between £106 and £206 per 75ml- so anywhere from £200-800 a month would not be unheard of (dose dependent). Now, I think if people were paying for their own prescriptions the majority would opt for the former, at least to try in the first instance (with most not having the option to go for the more expensive suspension as they simply couldn’t afford it). The problem is that because we don’t pay for them directly (or at least not the full cost of the prescription, depending on where you live) patients have no idea of the cost so they want the easiest/best tasting/insert other reason for preference here. So they can be quite put out when they don’t get their own way. And it really doesn’t help when we as specialists (who usually write to GP’s to ask them to prescribe) don’t always heed the formulary/think about whether that is most cost-effective, which sets patient expectations that this is what they should get. When GP follows local guidance, and sat prescribe same drug, same dose just tablet instead of liquid (for instance) or generic instead of brand, patients feel they are not following specialist advice and this sometimes leads to upset. This is something that I have become more aware of over recent years, even more so since entering private sector where patients are sometimes paying for their own prescription so do want the most cost-effective formulation, so it’s partly on us!
And if no-one tells them then it is hardly surprising that most patients haven’t got a clue how much each medication costs, so I’m not blaming anyone or finding fault. The main issue with telling patients is that, from bitter experience, the reaction to being told that they should try a cheaper (but equally as effective) medication can often be very negative and/or very angry.
With regards the controls being placed on private into NHS referrals hitting people who save for that private consult, yes it is true. But, playing Devil’s advocate, why should one person be able to leap frog the queue over someone with higher clinical need or who has been waiting longer on the basis that they could afford (even via savings) for a private consultation? The referral triage system exists to try to ensure the most severe cases are seen first- it’s not perfect, of course, and as I say I am more than aware that waiting times are horrendous in many/most areas, which is driving more people to follow the private out-patient consult to get referred into the consultant NHS list without the wait. I absolutely understand why patients follow this path and I’m not condemning anyone who does it. My point is more that if we are not applying that triage system fairly to everyone, then it creates another layer of unfairness and inequality which is something we are supposed to be trying to avoid.
Similarly, if you do go down the private route then I think we do need to look at the NHS then doing any investigations you require (to avoid you having to pay for them, as many are costly) and then taking those results back to the private consultant to act upon. I absolutely understand why people do it, and most people wouldn’t choose to pay if they could get a prompt NHS service. But I think we do need to be more clear and consistent about the division/intersection between NHS and private healthcare, rather than some people being charged and others not. Also, it is giving private healthcare providers a bit of a hand and I’m not sure the NHS should be used that way.
We as consultants also need to be careful about what we do- of course, once we’ve got a patient in front of us then we want to help them as quickly as we can and if they can’t afford to go down the private route fully, then that means trying to get them onto our NHS caseload. It would be hard to say to a patient who has paid to see you in desperation “yes, I can help you but it will cost £x. If you can’t afford that, then I can see you and do this treatment in the NHS but you’ll have to wait 3months/6 months/a year” because it isn’t “clinically urgent” when currently you can refer them into your out-patient clinic and they could be seen much sooner. I’ve done it and probably will do it again. The the volume of people in this boat is increasing. But I suppose the system has to take a wider view of what we should and should not be allowed to do. I.e. you can refer to your own list but they take the same priority as if GP referred (so if it’s urgent, they get seen urgently but not in a follow up rather than a new patient appointment). I don’t know, I see both sides. It’s a bit if a moral minefield for me!