NHS: UK has one of the worst healthcare systems in world
BartSimpson @ Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:07 pm
Full title: NHS: UK now has one of the worst healthcare systems in the developed world, according to OECD report
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 21401.html
$1:
The UK has one of the worst healthcare systems in the developed world according to a damning new report which said the nation has an “outstandingly poor” record of preventing ill health.
Hospitals are now so short-staffed and underequipped that people are also dying needlessly because of a chronic lack of investment. The verdict, from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), will make embarrassing reading for David Cameron who denied the cash-strapped NHS is heading for its worst winter crisis.
Staff are too rushed to improve levels of care that have in many areas fallen below countries such as Turkey, Portugal and Poland. Almost 75,000 more doctors and nurses are needed to match standards in similar countries the OECD said in its annual Health at a Glance study comparing the quality of healthcare across 34 countries.
While access to care is “generally good” the quality of care in the UK is “poor to mediocre” across several key health areas, obesity levels are “dire” and the NHS struggles to get even the “basics” right, the report said citing a lack of investment over the last six years.
Britain was placed on a par with Chile and Poland as countries still lagging behind the best performers in survival following diagnosis for different types of cancer. The UK came 21st out of 23 countries on cervical cancer survival, 20th out of 23 countries on breast and bowel cancer survival and 19th out of 31 countries on stroke.
The organisation called for “urgent attention” to combat high rates of smoking, harmful alcohol consumption and obesity, which are all above the OECD average, to reduce premature mortality in the United Kingdom. Some 19 per cent of adults in the OECD are obese on average, but the figure in the UK is 25 per cent.
While survival after hospital admission for heart attack and stroke is improving it is “worse than many other OECD countries” including Canada, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, the 220-page study said. The UK is ranked 20th out of 32 countries on heart attack deaths.
Mark Pearson, OECD Deputy Director of Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, said many medics were too rushed to improve the care they give.
Hospitals are now so short-staffed and underequipped that people are also dying needlessly because of a chronic lack of investment. The verdict, from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), will make embarrassing reading for David Cameron who denied the cash-strapped NHS is heading for its worst winter crisis.
Staff are too rushed to improve levels of care that have in many areas fallen below countries such as Turkey, Portugal and Poland. Almost 75,000 more doctors and nurses are needed to match standards in similar countries the OECD said in its annual Health at a Glance study comparing the quality of healthcare across 34 countries.
While access to care is “generally good” the quality of care in the UK is “poor to mediocre” across several key health areas, obesity levels are “dire” and the NHS struggles to get even the “basics” right, the report said citing a lack of investment over the last six years.
Britain was placed on a par with Chile and Poland as countries still lagging behind the best performers in survival following diagnosis for different types of cancer. The UK came 21st out of 23 countries on cervical cancer survival, 20th out of 23 countries on breast and bowel cancer survival and 19th out of 31 countries on stroke.
The organisation called for “urgent attention” to combat high rates of smoking, harmful alcohol consumption and obesity, which are all above the OECD average, to reduce premature mortality in the United Kingdom. Some 19 per cent of adults in the OECD are obese on average, but the figure in the UK is 25 per cent.
While survival after hospital admission for heart attack and stroke is improving it is “worse than many other OECD countries” including Canada, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, the 220-page study said. The UK is ranked 20th out of 32 countries on heart attack deaths.
Mark Pearson, OECD Deputy Director of Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, said many medics were too rushed to improve the care they give.
Excerpted. More at the link.
BartSimpson @ Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:11 pm
Canada is doing well.
Something that's not being mentioned here is that the UK healthcare looked pretty good from 2000-2010. One has to wonder at the impact of the five million immigrants that the UK took in since then has had on the NHS.
Note that official UK immigration figures are dicey. The government generally reports NET immigration which is fine for population growth figures but it is not a true measure of actual immigration.
andyt @ Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:09 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Canada is doing well.
Something that's not being mentioned here is that the UK healthcare looked pretty good from 2000-2010. One has to wonder at the impact of the five million immigrants that the UK took in since then has had on the NHS.
Note that official UK immigration figures are dicey. The government generally reports NET immigration which is fine for population growth figures but it is not a true measure of actual immigration.
Something that's not being mentioned here is that the UK healthcare looked pretty good from 2000-2010. One has to wonder at the impact of the five million immigrants that the UK took in since then has had on the NHS.
Note that official UK immigration figures are dicey. The government generally reports NET immigration which is fine for population growth figures but it is not a true measure of actual immigration.
That doesn't sound like immigrants, especially those evil Muslims.
Britain has a two tier, public/private system, likely the public system is being starved under Cameron's austerity. Ruin the economy, ruin the healthcare.
$1:
Hospitals are now so short-staffed and underequipped that people are also dying needlessly because of a chronic lack of investment. Staff are too rushed to improve levels of care that have in many areas fallen below countries such as Turkey, Portugal and Poland. Almost 75,000 more doctors and nurses are needed to match standards in similar countries the OECD said in its annual Health at a Glance study comparing the quality of healthcare across 34 countries. NHS funding had remained static between 2009 and 2013, the OECD report said. Mr Pearson said the UK was spending “considerably less” than many OECD countries and that “you get what you pay for” in healthcare.
BeaverFever @ Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:12 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Canada is doing well.
Something that's not being mentioned here is that the UK healthcare looked pretty good from 2000-2010.
Something that's not being mentioned here is that the UK healthcare looked pretty good from 2000-2010.
And its had a conservative-lead government since 2010. Coincidence?
Batsy2 @ Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:53 pm
That's funny, because just last year we were told Britain has the best health system in the world:
NHS comes top in healthcare survey
The NHS has been declared the best healthcare system by an international panel of experts who rated its care superior to countries which spend far more on health.
The same study also castigated healthcare provision in the US as the worst of the 11 countries it looked at. Despite putting the most money into health, America denies care to many patients in need because they do not have health insurance and is also the poorest at saving the lives of people who fall ill, it found.
The report has been produced by the Commonwealth Fund, a Washington-based foundation which is respected around the world for its analysis of the performance of different countries' health systems. It examined an array of evidence about performance in 11 countries, including detailed data from patients, doctors and the World Health Organisation.
"The United Kingdom ranks first overall, scoring highest on quality, access and efficiency," the fund's researchers conclude in their 30-page report. Their findings amount to a huge endorsement of the health service, especially as it spends the second-lowest amount on healthcare among the 11 – just £2,008 per head, less than half the £5,017 in the US. Only New Zealand, with £1,876, spent less.
In the Commonwealth Fund study the UK came first out of the 11 countries in eight of the 11 measures of care the authors looked at. It got top place on measures including providing effective care, safe care, co-ordinated care and patient-centred care. The fund also rated the NHS as the best for giving access to care and for efficient use of resources.
The NHS also outperforms the other countries – which include France, Germany and Canada – in managing the care of people who are chronically ill, the report said.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... nhs-health
And as recently as October 2015, the UK was judged to be the best country in the world in which to die:
UK is the best place in the world to die, according to end-of-life care index
The UK is the best place in the world in which to die, according to a study comparing end-of-life care in 80 countries.
The integration of palliative care into the NHS, a strong hospice movement largely funded by the charitable sector, specialised staff and deep community engagement are among the reasons cited by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).
The upper echelons of the index are dominated by wealthy European, Asia-Pacific and north American countries. Australia is second, New Zealand third and Ireland and Belgium complete the top five.
Annie Pannelay, of EIU healthcare, said: “A very strong marker in our index is the availability of specialised palliative care workers and this is where the UK scores particularly well. The UK has a long history of providing treatment in palliative care. The other super strong marker is the way that the countries do have a plan for palliative care. That means they are on the dynamic of measuring progress and improving.”
The US is ninth in the index. Taiwan is the highest Asian country, placing sixth, while India and China rank 67th and 71st respectively. Their performances were described as worrying in light of their huge populations, with China of particular concern given that “the impact of the one-child policy, often leaving individuals caring for two parents and four grandparents, will lead to even more demand for outside resources to provide support”.
Among the countries that fare well despite being less wealthy and having less well developed healthcare systems are Mongolia and Panama, 28th and 31st on the index respectively. Mongolia’s performance was attributed to an individual doctor who has driven an increase in palliative care.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... care-index
Batsy2 @ Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:59 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
And its had a conservative-lead government since 2010. Coincidence?
It's noticeable that, within the UK, the NHS in England, which is run by the UK Conservative Government (with England not having a parliament of her own), is performing slightly better than the NHS in Wales, which is run by the devolved Welsh Assembly and the devolved Welsh Labour Government.
OnTheIce @ Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:13 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Canada is doing well.
Something that's not being mentioned here is that the UK healthcare looked pretty good from 2000-2010.
Something that's not being mentioned here is that the UK healthcare looked pretty good from 2000-2010.
And its had a conservative-lead government since 2010. Coincidence?
I'm sure if there were liberals in office, the health care would be top notch....because liberals are the God's of health care. They could take some advice from Ontario.
BeaverFever @ Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:03 pm
$1:
I'm sure if there were liberals in office, the health care would be top notch....because liberals are the God's of health care. They could take some advice from Ontario.
Healthcare has improved since the Liberals took over from Darth Harris. We now have one of the lowest wait times in the country (only Sask is better).
BartSimpson @ Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:21 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Healthcare has improved since the Liberals took over from Darth Harris. We now have one of the lowest wait times in the country (only Sask is better).
You mean you're down to nine months wait for prenatal care?
![[B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif "Drink up")
OnTheIce @ Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:25 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
$1:
I'm sure if there were liberals in office, the health care would be top notch....because liberals are the God's of health care. They could take some advice from Ontario.
Healthcare has improved since the Liberals took over from Darth Harris. We now have one of the lowest wait times in the country (only Sask is better).
Do you actually believe that?
BartSimpson @ Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:42 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
$1:
I'm sure if there were liberals in office, the health care would be top notch....because liberals are the God's of health care. They could take some advice from Ontario.
Healthcare has improved since the Liberals took over from Darth Harris. We now have one of the lowest wait times in the country (only Sask is better).
Do you actually believe that?
Given that he believes a reduction in income is a cost I'd not rule it out.
BeaverFever @ Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:55 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
$1:
I'm sure if there were liberals in office, the health care would be top notch....because liberals are the God's of health care. They could take some advice from Ontario.
Healthcare has improved since the Liberals took over from Darth Harris. We now have one of the lowest wait times in the country (only Sask is better).
Do you actually believe that?
Obviously your head is in the sand.
Two reports on wait times came out this week, one from the Wait Time Alliance, the other from the right-wing garbage think tank the Fraser Institute. But both measured wait times the same way and Sask had the best, followed closely by Ontario.
BeaverFever @ Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:57 pm
$1:
Given that he believes a reduction in income is a cost I'd not rule it out.
Nice pot-shot, considering I took you to school to that in that thread and you promptly retreated from the entire discussion.
BartSimpson @ Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:20 pm
Dude, you think a reduction in revenue is a cost. You doubled down on it. What point is there in arguing it with you any further?
Go take a business class or at least check out some Khan Academy videos on business. Then get back to me.
OnTheIce @ Wed Dec 09, 2015 6:09 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Obviously your head is in the sand.
Two reports on wait times came out this week, one from the Wait Time Alliance, the other from the right-wing garbage think tank the Fraser Institute. But both measured wait times the same way and Sask had the best, followed closely by Ontario.
Clearly, you didn't read much beyond the headline.
Look at how many sectors in Ontario didn't report wait times. Add to that, we're double where we were in 1993. despite the largest tax increase in Ontario history (Health Care Premium).
Add to that all of the cuts made under the Liberals....the constant de-listing of services like eye care and chiropractic.
Health care in Ontario hasn't been better since McGuinty was elected.