11% of doctors and 4% of nurses from EU + Norway, Iceland & Liechtenstein

[nearlyhellokitty]

theconversation.com/the-truth-about-migrants-and-the-nhs-60908 - Plus:

Migrants that become “ordinarily resident” in the UK are entitled to use the NHS on the same terms as people born here. But they are less likely than the native population to do so. People who migrate tend to be younger and healthier than native populations. Older people and those with disabilities and severe illness are less likely to move, apart from in extreme circumstances. This underpins a longstanding epidemiological phenomenon, called the “healthy migrant effect”.

This is backed up by evidence from NHS data. A University of Oxford study using local authority immigration data and NHS hospital data found that areas with more immigration had lower waiting times for outpatient referrals. On average, a 10% increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority reduced waiting times by nine days. The authors find no evidence that immigration affects waiting times in A&E and in elective care.

Migrants are less likely to be ill, and also more likely to be working. The Institute for Public Policy Research recently reported that EU migrants have higher employment rates than UK nationals. The employment rate of UK nationals is 74%, slightly below the 75% for migrants from EU15 countries (those in the EU before 2004). Employment rates for migrants from newer member states is 83 per cent, although they tend to be in lower-skilled and lower-paid work.

If migrants are working, they’ll be paying income tax and making national insurance contributions. These are the sources of NHS funding. This means that resident migrants are likely to be paying their share towards the costs of the NHS.

So immigrants to the UK are more likely to be healthy and more likely to be working. The opposite may be the case for emigrants from the UK. Around 1.2m Britons live in other EU countries – mainly in Spain, Ireland, France and Germany. While some of these emigrants have moved to work, many have chosen to retire overseas. And retirees are more likely to make use of the health system, simply because they are older. On balance, then, the UK benefits from “healthy immigrants”, while exporting “unhealthy emigrants” for other health systems to deal with.

The area TooMuchCoffee works in sounds like the area my PILS live in semi rural with a large ageing population whereas I work in the inner cities with a very young population and hence different health needs and demands on the NHS. Our main demands are on the maternity and paediatric services as migrants of working age are having babies causing a baby boom.

I work in a very specialist area of paediatrics and yes health tourism is well known amongst HCPs. The £250000 a year drug is only given to a few children who would most benefit from it but it can literally delay the progression of their condition and prolong their lives.

This year we have had 8 children from Eastern Europe added to our service which is a new clinic list. I don't blame their parents for wanting to come here as often in their home countries they don't get regular medical reviews and treatments they need to stay well and were buying expensive unsuitable drugs privately. However all this needs to be properly funded as we are now seriously overstretched and unable to provide the best quality service for all our patients.

I suppose this is the gist of my argument with staying in the EU is the rich countries such as ourselves will have to accept a lower standard of living if we are to improve the standard of living for the poorer countries who have joined the EU and those waiting to join. This I think will affect our dcs and gdcs much more.

Alchemist

It's not semi-rural actually, mainly urban, and small towns but relatively well off. Low down on the deprivation list to start with.

I'm not denying that health tourism exists, but it is very patchy, and overall a small drop in the ocean of colossal budget cuts and an ageing population. In your particular case of Romanians, less than 750,00 Romanians & Bulgarians live in the UK. There are 11.4 million people over the age of 65 in the UK (May 2016). So the number of immigrants from poor EU countries is high, but still not a patch on the demands the older people make. And not all these immigrants from poor countries are themselves poor. My NHS dentist is Romanian, and she has lived and worked here since before accession. Presumably she was recruited at a time of shortage of NHS dentists. And as all the data makes clear, young healthy migrants are far less likely to use health services than our own older residents.
When you talk about the Roma you need to remember that these people are verging on refugees from very racist homeland. They are small in number, and very visible, and do indeed have a very different way of living. And it's not easy for those living near them, no. There is a huge culture clash there.

Your last paragraph can't fairly be paraphrased (I'm too tired, anyway!)
"I suppose this is the gist of my argument with staying in the EU is the rich countries such as ourselves will have to accept a lower standard of living if we are to improve the standard of living for the poorer countries who have joined the EU and those waiting to join. This I think will affect our dcs and gdcs much more."
I take the contrary view to this: We are all richer in the long term if our neighbours are richer, and the world is richer. We are at far more risk when poverty lives next to wealth and when people see massive injustices. I mean this locally, nationally, in Europe and on the global scale. Inequality is a major problem.
Personally I worked out many, many years ago that it was inevitable that Britain would become less well off compared with other global powers as the power shifted from north west Europe and the US towards Asia, India and China in particular, as large economies. I made it my business to know and understand about this long before I heard the term globalisation, which I think I first heard when a French farmer dropped muck outside MacDonald's. Globalisation is not the fault of the EU. In fact the EU has been a bulwark against globalisation for the pampered rich of western Europe. This last sentence is your essay question for tonight!

Coffee I haven't specifically mentioned the Roma or Romanians as you have attributed to my last post as my patients are from a mixture of Eastern European countries. Although China, India, Asia may have bigger economies than us we have strengths which they don't and which are equally if not more important namely strong laws and political stability, which is why despite globalisation we continue to attract investment and prosper. By remaining in the EU we will lose the ability to govern ourselves and decide our own laws, chucking our lot in with countries which are not renowned for their political or economic stability.

TheAlchemist - countries not renowned for stability? like Germany, France, Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark... compared to what? China ? Chile? Whether or not you like the EU membership of the EU has correlated with stability and growth

Plus - China etc have bigger markets. You know what that means when it comes to trade negotiations? They call the shots.

Countries I would consider either economically or politically unstable or both are Greece, Italy, Portugal as well the former communist Eastern European countries and those looking to join the EU: Turkey, Serbia, Kosovo, Albania, Ukraine, Montenegro.

We have political stability which is why the Chinese and Russians stash their money in the UK through property and investments because they can't trust their own governments not to grab it off them when times are hard are just because they fancy it.

The UK's biggest selling point is its strong laws and political stability comparable with Switzerlands neutrality. People all the over the world trust the UK's property laws hence why they want to invest and deposit their money here. We risk all that if we remain in the EU with ever closer integration.

Well one of our big selling points is actually the combination of political stability, lack of regulation and access to the European single market. Suspect stability and access to the EU market are going to suffer afree brexit

In fact many international companies have already indicated they will leave without that access

Notice that a good chunk of the countries you mention aren't actually members if the EU. And eg Italy is a funny case - both macro economic issues but also a major market, good at entrepreneurism and exports