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/2.../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/2.../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.

[-: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

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.