NHS is the world's best healthcare system, report says

[Chippiewill]

The NHS has been declared the world's 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 globally. 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 only serious black mark against the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive. On a composite "healthy lives" score, which includes deaths among infants and patients who would have survived had they received timely and effective healthcare, the UK came 10th. The authors say that the healthcare system cannot be solely blamed for this issue, which is strongly influenced by social and economic factors. Although the NHS came third overall for the timeliness of care, its "short waiting times" were praised. "There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialised services are inevitable. However, the Netherlands, UK and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to speciality services,", the report added.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health

And yet Dan always seems so insistent that we'll get better healthcare for less if we privatise the NHS..

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.

[FlyingJesus]

"The only serious black mark against the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive" lmao at least it's nothing important then

[Chippiewill]

Blame the death panels.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health

And yet Dan always seems so insistent that we'll get better healthcare for less if we privatise the NHS..

If the NHS is as great as this report claims, then why would wealthier people living in the UK (and who thus are as entitled to 'amazing' NHS care as we all are) opt out of the NHS and opt for private healthcare instead and thus pay double? If the NHS was as great as it is always claimed to be, then private healthcare companies in the UK would be out of pocket and wouldn't exist. Yet they do exist for those who want to (and who can afford to) avoid state-run hospitals. My own experience of private healthcare (paid for via NHS) is that it was much better than the NHS. By a country mile.

Besides, privatising the NHS is politically impossible. All I would do is introduce the ability to opt out of state healthcare, which is only fair.

[dbgtz]

If the NHS is as great as this report claims, then why would wealthier people living in the UK (and who thus are as entitled to 'amazing' NHS care as we all are) opt out of the NHS and opt for private healthcare instead and thus pay double? If the NHS was as great as it is always claimed to be, then private healthcare companies in the UK would be out of pocket and wouldn't exist. Yet they do exist for those who want to (and who can afford to) avoid state-run hospitals. My own experience of private healthcare (paid for via NHS) is that it was much better than the NHS. By a country mile.

Besides, privatising the NHS is politically impossible. All I would do is introduce the ability to opt out of state healthcare, which is only fair.

To be seen to quicker (which the NHS didn't rank 1st in) and to have a private room.
http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9542817.ece/alternates/w1024/Davis_Mirror_2014_ES1_for_web.jpg

[-:Undertaker:-]

To be seen to quicker (which the NHS didn't rank 1st in) and to have a private room.

Then clearly many people who are paying for private healthcare in Britain are very mistaken where as this report is right, although somehow myself I very much doubt it. As with all reports and statistics too, always remain sceptical: for example with this report, i'm finding it very hard to convince myself that money-sensible Switzerland as well as the likes of Singapore (which isn't shown) spend more than Britain per person on healthcare. Could it be that many of the UK costs are being hidden off the books, with the likes of PFI schemes (which to my knowledge aren't included in the official debt calculations either)? Maybe, it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

As i've said though, the NHS in Britain enjoys a lot of public support which would make it politically impossible as well as wrong to privatise, even if I think much of that worship is misplaced and deluded. All I wish to see is an opt out of state healthcare so that people like myself who think differently on the question of the NHS can then afford to pay for private healthcare which we consider better.

[dbgtz]

Then clearly many people who are paying for private healthcare in Britain are very mistaken where as this report is right, although somehow myself I very much doubt it. As with all reports and statistics too, always remain sceptical: for example with this report, i'm finding it very hard to convince myself that money-sensible Switzerland as well as the likes of Singapore (which isn't shown) spend more than Britain per person on healthcare. Could it be that many of the UK costs are being hidden off the books, with the likes of PFI schemes (which to my knowledge aren't included in the official debt calculations either)? Maybe, it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

As i've said though, the NHS in Britain enjoys a lot of public support which would make it politically impossible as well as wrong to privatise, even if I think much of that worship is misplaced and deluded. All I wish to see is an opt out of state healthcare so that people like myself who think differently on the question of the NHS can then afford to pay for private healthcare which we consider better.

No because the waiting times have shown to not be the best & being in a private or "public" room doesn't make a difference to these rankings?

[Zak]

"The only serious black mark against the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive" lmao at least it's nothing important then

Lmao. I can't believe they put that in the report :P


If the NHS is as great as this report claims, then why would wealthier people living in the UK (and who thus are as entitled to 'amazing' NHS care as we all are) opt out of the NHS and opt for private healthcare instead and thus pay double? If the NHS was as great as it is always claimed to be, then private healthcare companies in the UK would be out of pocket and wouldn't exist. Yet they do exist for those who want to (and who can afford to) avoid state-run hospitals. My own experience of private healthcare (paid for via NHS) is that it was much better than the NHS. By a country mile.

I completely agree. I've had many dealings with the NHS and if the NHS is ranked the best healthcare system in the world then we do have problems. As you've said people wouldn't pay for private healthcare if the NHS were so good. Even I've thought about private healthcare (even though I can't afford it) just to get problems sorted. :/

[Inseriousity.]

People paying for private healthcare doesn't mean that the NHS is no good. People with wealth naturally want more than those beneath them. It's a symbol of status and wealth, similar to buying a super-fast flashy sports car when in reality you'll never reach the speeds it promises. Hear all the time about doggy day spas - pamper your pooches - or crystallised handbags/fashion accessories or state-of-the-art [insert useless gadgets here], it's all yours at only [insert average weekly/monthly/annual wage here]. Enough to make an average person go wtf as they're driving around in their crappy car, insurance costing more than the car does etc etc.

Not to say the NHS is perfect (shame bout all those people dying).

[Kardan]

I can't believe people are using 'The NHS can't be good because people pay for private healthcare' - it simply means that private healthcare is better. People with money are more willing to pay for higher quality things.

Anyways, I'd rather have the NHS everyday over other healthcare systems. In the US it costs a woman on average around ~$3,500 just to give birth in a hospital.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I can't believe people are using 'The NHS can't be good because people pay for private healthcare' - it simply means that private healthcare is better. People with money are more willing to pay for higher quality things.

Anyways, I'd rather have the NHS everyday over other healthcare systems. In the US it costs a woman on average around ~$3,500 just to give birth in a hospital.

Um dear, it also costs thousands for a woman to give birth in a hospital under the NHS too.

I don't think you lot quite get it, the state doesn't give you ANYTHING free - not unless you're a lazy bum and a grifter, it all has to be paid for. Even I'd prefer the US health system (in which federal interference has destroyed over the past few decades) as at least they get good specialists when they have a cancer scare or a health scare, as opposed to the NHS which will send you backwards and forwards to your GP who really hasn't got a clue what he or she is doing. My Grandad had a cancer scare and we just made him go private as we wouldn't risk the weeks of messing about the NHS wanted us to go through - i'd also heard countless other NHS horror stories, including from my hard left-wing history teacher.

At the end of the day you get what you pay for, and you always will - hence people go private over the NHS.


People paying for private healthcare doesn't mean that the NHS is no good. People with wealth naturally want more than those beneath them. It's a symbol of status and wealth, similar to buying a super-fast flashy sports car when in reality you'll never reach the speeds it promises. Hear all the time about doggy day spas - pamper your pooches - or crystallised handbags/fashion accessories or state-of-the-art [insert useless gadgets here], it's all yours at only [insert average weekly/monthly/annual wage here]. Enough to make an average person go wtf as they're driving around in their crappy car, insurance costing more than the car does etc etc.

Not to say the NHS is perfect (shame bout all those people dying).

Don't agree with that at all, i'm not a flashy person at all nor is my Grandad (see above) yet we'd pay (at times when we can afford) to go private and get better heath care with private services than we would under the NHS. I think the vast majority of people given the choice would opt for private healthcare over the NHS provided they could afford it as as I said above: you get what you pay for.

The question over state healthcare boils down to, as with all nationalisation: is the state better qualified at administering a service than the private sector? I honestly think if the NHS was a private healthcare company, with the amount of horror stories out there, it'd of been closed down by now.

Yet it gets a free ride. Why? Because there's a myth in this country that before the NHS we were all street urchins recieving third world care.

[FlyingJesus]

Infant mortality pre-NHS was around 1/20 (compared to 1/238 in 2011) and it was obviously mostly poor folk who suffered the most because their access to any healthcare at all was nil. No-one thinks that "before the NHS we were all street urchins recieving third world care", but people who really were that poor certainly didn't have healthcare options of any kind, and considering there is currently around 16.2% of the UK population considered a poverty risk. You're very good at telling me that I can't have an opinion on immigration because I'm "not affected" by it but here you are with private healthcare suggesting that everyone could afford it if they needed it, which simply isn't and never was true. The state doesn't need to be better qualified at providing a service than the private sector (because those who aren't happy with the NHS can obviously go elsewhere), it needs to be able to provide a good safe service which the figures at the top of the thread do show overall. Of course you can pay more and see a specialist, but as a general provider of healthcare the NHS does a fine job and a huge number of people owe their lives to it

[-:Undertaker:-]

Infant mortality pre-NHS was around 1/20 (compared to 1/238 in 2011) and it was obviously mostly poor folk who suffered the most because their access to any healthcare at all was nil. No-one thinks that "before the NHS we were all street urchins recieving third world care", but people who really were that poor certainly didn't have healthcare options of any kind, and considering there is currently around 16.2% of the UK population considered a poverty risk. You're very good at telling me that I can't have an opinion on immigration because I'm "not affected" by it but here you are with private healthcare suggesting that everyone could afford it if they needed it, which simply isn't and never was true. The state doesn't need to be better qualified at providing a service than the private sector (because those who aren't happy with the NHS can obviously go elsewhere), it needs to be able to provide a good safe service which the figures at the top of the thread do show overall. Of course you can pay more and see a specialist[

I can tell you already don't know what you're talking about.

Pre-NHS, most people had access to healthcare in this country (and there were plans just after the war by Canada and other countries to look at adopting the British system) and it was good healthcare, provided by both government hospitals (where need be) as well as charitable hospitals. If you attempt to argue with this point by bringing back 1950s statistics levels of birth deaths or morality, that is a relative argument as healthcare (across the world) has drastically improved since then so you cannot compare 1940 levels of mortality with those of 2014, that'd be like comparing the Royal Spanish Navy of 1600 with the US Navy of today: both were top in their day, yet the US Navy of today would wipe the Spanish Navy of 1600 out under an hour today with one aircraft carrier simply because of technological advances.

All the creation of the NHS achieved was providing free healthcare for the wealthy (who previously had to pay directly for their healthcare treatment) as well as centralising healthcare in this country, something which has been a disaster - as most centralisation projects are - and which has led to an unmanagable system, hence why the NHS is undergoing constant 'reform' without any real change.


....and a huge number of people owe their lives to it

And this is exactly why we can't have sensible debates on healthcare in this country, because it all comes back to emotional responses of how filthy children in the 1950s suddenly were rescued after the war by ward matrons in their white gowns rushing to defend and look after the poor. Telling me that many people owe their lives to the NHS is like me telling you that you owe your education to your primary and secondary school: well, no **** and I should think so too given the amount of money we throw at them.

[FlyingJesus]

We can't have a sensible conversation because then you'd have to agree and/or make up imagery that no-one's suggested?

And no, the NHS is not just a freebie for the rich. It provides a huge amount of medical research as well as treatment and so actively contributes to the improved condition of general health that you claimed was irrelevant. A disaster would be poor quality of care and no medical advancement, both of which are provably not things that we have to put up with. I'm far from a socialist but even so I don't see a constantly improving government service that's of the best quality of any in the world as an unmanageable disaster

[Kardan]

Um dear, it also costs thousands for a woman to give birth in a hospital under the NHS too.

I don't think you lot quite get it, the state doesn't give you ANYTHING free - not unless you're a lazy bum and a grifter, it all has to be paid for. Even I'd prefer the US health system (in which federal interference has destroyed over the past few decades) as at least they get good specialists when they have a cancer scare or a health scare, as opposed to the NHS which will send you backwards and forwards to your GP who really hasn't got a clue what he or she is doing. My Grandad had a cancer scare and we just made him go private as we wouldn't risk the weeks of messing about the NHS wanted us to go through - i'd also heard countless other NHS horror stories, including from my hard left-wing history teacher.

At the end of the day you get what you pay for, and you always will - hence people go private over the NHS.



Don't agree with that at all, i'm not a flashy person at all nor is my Grandad (see above) yet we'd pay (at times when we can afford) to go private and get better heath care with private services than we would under the NHS. I think the vast majority of people given the choice would opt for private healthcare over the NHS provided they could afford it as as I said above: you get what you pay for.

The question over state healthcare boils down to, as with all nationalisation: is the state better qualified at administering a service than the private sector? I honestly think if the NHS was a private healthcare company, with the amount of horror stories out there, it'd of been closed down by now.

Yet it gets a free ride. Why? Because there's a myth in this country that before the NHS we were all street urchins recieving third world care.

Indeed, in the UK it may cost a few thousand to give birth and through paying our taxes and what not we might actually pay "nothing" on the day. In the US it costs several tens of thousands of dollars to give birth and if you're one of the lucky ones to have insurance, you still have to pay several thousand dollars afterwards (as I said, it comes down from several tens of thousands of dollars to around $3,500 on average). I certainly know which one I'd prefer.

And that $3,500 figure is for a normal birth. So no C-section. No complications. No midwives. If you want a C-section, more money. Complications you can't control? More money. Want a midwife? More money. Heck, here it is from one of your favourite sources: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2352687/How-cost-giving-birth-U-S-TRIPLED-1996-9-775--thanks-expensive-fees-epidural-placenta-removal.html

I also read something the other day about in America how someone's grandmother went into hospital with a heart scare, and it turned out to only be acid reflux. She was kept in hospital for only 8 hours. $22,000 bill.

Private healthcare is *bound* to be better, but this article isn't trying to disprove that. It's saying that the main healthcare system in the UK is better than US, Canada etc. Iknow which service I would prefer as well.

- - - Updated - - -


All the creation of the NHS achieved was providing free healthcare for the wealthy (who previously had to pay directly for their healthcare treatment)


I don't think you lot quite get it, the state doesn't give you ANYTHING free - not unless you're a lazy bum and a grifter, it all has to be paid for

So, wait - which one is it?

[dbgtz]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh7CKhiIMAA4Ltw.jpg
https://twitter.com/StephenMcGann/status/479379029372731392
Kardan; -:Undertaker:-;