NHS crisis: 20 hospitals declare black alert as patient safety no longer assured

[T_i_B]

Cannot help but wonder if this crisis could have been averted with greater public sector assistance and funding....

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/11/nhs-crisis-20-hospitals-declare-black-alert-as-patient-safety-no-longer-assured

More than 20 hospitals in England have had to declare a black alert this week after becoming so overcrowded that they could no longer guarantee patient safety and provide their full range of normal services. Unprecedented numbers of patients requiring care has led to at least 23 hospital trusts declaring they cannot cope since Monday, inquiries by the Guardian have established.

Struggling hospitals have been forced to take highly unusual steps in order to manage a surge in demand for care. They include cancelling cancer operations, treating adults in children’s wards and even closing a birthing centre to help cope with a sudden influx of patients who need to be admitted for treatment.

Hospitals are expected to come under even greater strain over the next few days as unusually cold weather sweeps across much of the country, which doctors fear could prompt a spike in serious breathing problems, among other conditions.

University hospitals of Leicester NHS trust was under so much strain on Tuesday that it declared a “system critical incident” – even higher than a black alert – and had to make patients wait in ambulances before being offloaded into the care of A&E staff.

[putitinD]

1. I would still take the brittish system over ours. at least everyone is covered. even if the wait

may be a little longer.

[T_i_B]

2. The British government wants to move to a system more like yours

Which is a monumentally bad idea if you ask me. Increased private sector involvement in the NHS is clearly not having the desired effect for patients.

[putitinD]

5. +1

[Laffy Kat]

3. Yes, but the British healthcare is two-tiered and not as fair as it sounds.

The wealthy often purchase private insurance on top of the NHS.

[putitinD]

4. and the poor are ALL covered. I would take that, over a profit driven system.

[LeftishBrit]

6. I agree, but unfortunately some of our politicians are trying to make ours more profit-driven

[Laffy Kat]

8. Oh, I would too; don't get get me wrong. nt

[TubbersUK]

10. Use of private insurance is fairly limited

and , where it is used, cheap, bolt-on company schemes dominate.

Roughly 11 per cent of the UK population has some form of private medical insurance.
That figure, however, gives a misleading impression as far from all of that cover is
comprehensive. Few policies, whether company-paid or provided, or individually paid,
offer maternity or mental health cover. None provide cover for accidents and emergency
or for general practice.
But even within those limitations, the precise level of cover varies significantly between
policies. There are varying levels of co-payment, and varying financial limits to cover,
along with differing restrictions on which private hospitals can be used without
additional payment. There are policies which only take effect when the NHS wait is longer
than a specified period, or which operate as a form of ‘stop-loss’ insurance – where the
individual meets the first £1,000 or £2,000 of the cost of care, for example. In addition,
some merely cover particular conditions, for example cancer or cardiac care. Many of
these variations exist in the company-paid market, but they are even more pronounced
when individuals buy cover for themselves or their families.
There is no good published data that allows the extent of these various levels of cover to
be analysed. But it is clear that nothing like 11 per cent of the United Kingdom has what
might be described as comprehensive private medical insurance. Indeed, LaingBuisson
recently remarked that ‘it is believed that the private medical insurance market has been
characterised in recent years by downgrading… switching to products with narrower
cover or with fewer dependants included’ (LaingBuisson 2011, p 154).
The dominance of company-paid schemes is partly explained by the fact that individuals
can enjoy appreciably lower premiums in a company scheme than in an individual one.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/media/commission-appendix-uk-private-health-market.pdf

[Laffy Kat]

11. Thanks for the information. nt

[LeftishBrit]

7. Our leaders suffer, in both health and education, from what might be called the King Canute syndrome

The idea is that all you have to do is order things to go better, and they will, without any infusion of money, staff or planning.

The latest is that GP surgeries should open 12 hours a day or lose funding. While I think that's in principle a good idea - at present it is difficult for people working full-time to see a GP during surgery hours - how is one going to do it without training more GPs (and that takes time)? And to top it all off, there's all this Brexit nonsense and desire to reduce the proportion of non-British EU staff in the health service - which would collapse tomorrow without the EU staff!

[TubbersUK]

9. Regarding funding or rather underfunding

Last edited Tue Jan 17, 2017, 07:20 AM - Edit history (2)

The budget for the NHS in England for 2015/16 is £116.4 billion.

The increase in spending announced in the 2015 Spending Review will see the NHS budget increase to £133.1 billion by 2020/21. This amounts to a real increase of £4.5 billion. Nearly half this amount is earmarked for 2016/17, leaving the remaining increase spread over the next four years.

This means that between 2009/10 and 2020/21, spending on the NHS in England will rise by nearly £35 billion in cash terms – an increase of 35 per cent. But much of this increase will be swallowed up by rising prices. In fact, around £24 billion will be absorbed by inflation, leaving a real increase of just £11 billion (a 10 per cent rise over eleven years; equivalent to an average annual increase of just 0.9 per cent).[/div]


https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget

As a percentage of GDP , UK health spend is falling behind our European neighbours:

Since then, however, the gap has started to widen (particularly against countries that weathered the global financial crisis better than the UK) and looks set to grow further. UK GDP is forecast to grow in real terms by around 15.2 per cent between 2014/15 and 2020/21. But on current plans[2], UK public spending on the NHS will grow by much less: 5.2 per cent. This is equivalent to around £7 billion in real terms – increasing from £135 billion in 2014/15 to £142 billion in 2020/21. As a proportion of GDP it will fall to 6.6 per cent compared to 7.3 per cent in 2014/15. But, if spending kept pace with growth in the economy, by 2020/21 the UK NHS would be spending around £158 billion at today's prices – £16 billion more than planned.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2016/01/how-does-nhs-spending-compare-health-spending-internationally