Millions to be affected by NHS plan to ration 34 everyday tests and treatments

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...CMP=GTUK_email

The Guardian has seen a list of 34 diagnostic tests and treatments that in future patients in England will only be able to get in exceptional circumstances as part of a drive to save money and relieve the pressure on the NHS.

The sweeping changes they are set to propose include many forms of surgery, as well as ways of detecting illness including CT and MRI scans, and blood tests, for cancer, arthritis, back problems, kidney stones, sinus infections and depression. Three of the procedures have since been dropped from the list.

Rationed NHS? Not what was envisioned by the originators of the NHS.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Maggy

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...CMP=GTUK_email




Rationed NHS? Not what was envisioned by the originators of the NHS.

We can expect a lot more of that in future if we priotise tax cuts over investing in our health. You get what you vote for.

[Sephiroth]

Good job that list came out before the GE.

[nomadking]

Of course this sort of thing never happened before 2010.

From Apr 2007

Approaches to identifying both effective and cost-effective practices have become central to rationing decisions in the NHS. The establishment of the NICE, which produces guidance on what treatments should be provided by the NHS, represents the most visible approach to introducing economic considerations into these decisions.

[Taf]

I have never been called for my 5 yearly Health MOT by our GP. This should include a PSA test for prostate cancer. He thinks it is "unnecessary" despite him being paid to provide the service.

Over the years GPs here have also withdrawn minor surgeries (splinter extraction, cysts drainage, etc.), wart and verruca treatments, lice and headlice treatments, ingrowing toenail treatment, podiatry for the disabled, old or infirm, etc. etc. And now there are no walk-in consultations, just an appointment system with no evening or weekend cover, and neither for 2 afternoons per week.

And now they want to opt-out of out-of-hours cover and most home visits, demanding "another body" be set up to do it all instead.

Ad yet I suspect their pay will not drop a penny....

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Of course this sort of thing never happened before 2010.

From Apr 2007

Can’t criticise the Tories without acknowledging that the same failures existed in New Labour!

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

Can’t criticise the Tories without acknowledging that the same failures existed in New Labour!

Nothing to do with failures on either side. Nothing to do with tax cuts. Some of those things are likely to have been already restricted in certain health authorities, even before 2010. Eg The arthroscopic cleaning of arthritic knee mentioned in this list, has been found to not be effective and was restricted in certain(possibly all) regions.
2005

Arthroscopic debridement of the knee has thus far only been found to be effective for medial compartmental OA. All other indications should be reviewed with a view to reducing arthroscopic debridement as an effective therapy.
Arthroscopic lavage of the knee is not indicated for any stage of OA.

2014

Does knee arthroscopy have benefits?
The answer is fairly clear: Therapeutic arthroscopy has no benefits. In the studies, people who had arthroscopy had pain and other difficulties just as often afterwards as those who had not. One study assessed quality of life – that was also not improved by arthroscopy.

Although.

There were also no differences between arthroscopy and other treatments such as hyaluronic acid injections, pain relieving medication, lavage or physiotherapy. Arthroscopy neither relieved pain nor any other knee problems better than other therapies. No difference was found between the groups in the two studies assessing quality of life either.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Taf

I have never been called for my 5 yearly Health MOT by our GP. This should include a PSA test for prostate cancer. He thinks it is "unnecessary" despite him being paid to provide the service.

Over the years GPs here have also withdrawn minor surgeries (splinter extraction, cysts drainage, etc.), wart and verruca treatments, lice and headlice treatments, ingrowing toenail treatment, podiatry for the disabled, old or infirm, etc. etc. And now there are no walk-in consultations, just an appointment system with no evening or weekend cover, and neither for 2 afternoons per week.

And now they want to opt-out of out-of-hours cover and most home visits, demanding "another body" be set up to do it all instead.

Ad yet I suspect their pay will not drop a penny....

Blimey, even I get the bowel cancer screening now. Though Mr A gets annoyed by the reminders for his annual check-up, which he refuses as he is already getting these for other reasons.

---------- Post added at 13:50 ---------- Previous post was at 13:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

We can expect a lot more of that in future if we priotise tax cuts over investing in our health. You get what you vote for.

Thats the problem. Successive Governments seem absolutely terrified of direct taxation, even for a specific purpose.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Angua

Blimey, even I get the bowel cancer screening now. Though Mr A gets annoyed by the reminders for his annual check-up, which he refuses as he is already getting these for other reasons.

---------- Post added at 13:50 ---------- Previous post was at 13:49 ----------



Thats the problem. Successive Governments seem absolutely terrified of direct taxation, even for a specific purpose.

Terrified because they know it's not what people want. If the electorate wanted it, they would get their wish.

Good luck with Jo Swinson's proposed tax increase. That should see her installed as our next Prime Minister!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Nothing to do with failures on either side. Nothing to do with tax cuts. Some of those things are likely to have been already restricted in certain health authorities, even before 2010. Eg The arthroscopic cleaning of arthritic knee mentioned in this list, has been found to not be effective and was restricted in certain(possibly all) regions.
2005

2014
Although.

It’s everything to do with tax cuts. The decisions of what we do (and don’t) fund are a direct result of tax revenues.

You appear to be clouding the matter by bringing in a separate matter on a point people would universally agree: there’s no point funding treatment doesn’t work. That’s of course different from the wider issue.

---------- Post added at 14:15 ---------- Previous post was at 14:09 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Terrified because they know it's not what people want. If the electorate wanted it, they would get their wish.

Good luck with Jo Swinson's proposed tax increase. That should see her installed as our next Prime Minister!

“It’s not what people want” is a curious interpretation. You’re assuming people are well informed, and that politicians strive to inform them appropriately.

As I’ve pointed out before - after 40 years of the neo-liberal consensus we are £2 trillion in debt. Politicians were happy to peddle the low tax myth without spelling out to people that it wasn’t sustainable. People were happy to vote for it. Future generations will foot the bill.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Terrified because they know it's not what people want. If the electorate wanted it, they would get their wish.

Good luck with Jo Swinson's proposed tax increase. That should see her installed as our next Prime Minister!

The electorate want the benefits without the cost, which is not possible in the real world.

They need to be educated in TANSTAAFL*

There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The electorate want the benefits without the cost, which is not possible in the real world.

They need to be educated in TANSTAAFL*

There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

You can however borrow against your children’s future ability to find their lunch.

Originally Posted by jfman

You can however borrow against your children’s future ability to find their lunch.

I’d rather not, thanks all the same...

[Angua]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s everything to do with tax cuts. The decisions of what we do (and don’t) fund are a direct result of tax revenues.

You appear to be clouding the matter by bringing in a separate matter on a point people would universally agree: there’s no point funding treatment doesn’t work. That’s of course different from the wider issue.

---------- Post added at 14:15 ---------- Previous post was at 14:09 ----------



“It’s not what people want” is a curious interpretation. You’re assuming people are well informed, and that politicians strive to inform them appropriately.

As I’ve pointed out before - after 40 years of the neo-liberal consensus we are £2 trillion in debt. Politicians were happy to peddle the low tax myth without spelling out to people that it wasn’t sustainable. People were happy to vote for it. Future generations will foot the bill.

Council cuts are down to central government reducing how much they give councils. So they cut repairs to roads, library funding schools & support services, as they are stuck with looking after children in care and the elderly, because they have also been prevented from raising council tax. So people are spending more on car repairs needed due to poor roads, ends up being a false economy. The same applies to NHS funding, if people do not get the treatment they need in a timely manner, they lose their jobs through being unable to work, so more tax income is lost, whilst benefits go up.

People have been sold getting something for nothing. It cannot be sustained.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Angua

Council cuts are down to central government reducing how much they give councils. So they cut repairs to roads, library funding schools & support services, as they are stuck with looking after children in care and the elderly, because they have also been prevented from raising council tax. So people are spending more on car repairs needed due to poor roads, ends up being a false economy. The same applies to NHS funding, if people do not get the treatment they need in a timely manner, they lose their jobs through being unable to work, so more tax income is lost, whilst benefits go up.

People have been sold getting something for nothing. It cannot be sustained.

How does the above sit with the reserves that Councils hold?

https://www.localgov.co.uk/Council-r...ast-year/48029

I suspect that the guvmin's squeeze will last until councils have committed reserves to what they claim they are starved of.