Criticism of the National Health Service (England) > 상담신청

• 목록
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Criticism of the National Health Service (England) consists of concerns such as gain access to, waiting lists, healthcare protection, and different scandals. The National Health Service (NHS) is the openly funded health care system of England, developed under the National Health Service Act 1946 by the post-war Labour government of Clement Attlee. It has come under much criticism, particularly during the early 2000s, due to outbreaks of antibiotic resistant infections such as MRSA and Clostridioides difficile infection, waiting lists, and medical scandals such as the Alder Hey organs scandal. However, the involvement of the NHS in scandals extends back many years, consisting of over the provision of mental health care in the 1970s and 1980s (ultimately part of the reason for the Mental Health Act 1983), and overspends on hospital newbuilds, including Guy's Hospital Phase III in London in 1985, the cost of which shot up from ₤ 29 million to ₤ 152 million. [1]

Access controls and waiting lists

In making healthcare a mostly "invisible cost" to the patient, health care appears to be efficiently complimentary to its consumers - there is no particular NHS tax or levy. To decrease expenses and ensure that everyone is treated equitably, there are a range of "gatekeepers." The family doctor (GP) functions as a main gatekeeper - without a recommendation from a GP, it is frequently impossible to gain higher courses of treatment, such as a visit with a consultant. These are argued to be essential - Welshman Bevan noted in a 1948 speech in your home of Commons, "we shall never have all we need ... expectations will constantly exceed capacity". [2] On the other hand, the national health insurance systems in other countries (e.g. Germany) have done without the need for recommendation; direct access to a professional is possible there. [3]

There has been issue about opportunistic "health travelers" travelling to Britain (mostly London) and utilizing the NHS while paying nothing. [4] British citizens have been known to take a trip to other European nations to benefit from lower costs, and since of a worry of hospital-acquired incredibly bugs and long waiting lists. [5]

NHS gain access to is for that reason managed by medical priority rather than rate mechanism, causing waiting lists for both assessments and surgery, approximately months long, although the Labour federal government of 1997-onwards made it one of its essential targets to lower waiting lists. In 1997, the waiting time for a non-urgent operation could be two years; there were ambitions to minimize it to 18 weeks in spite of opposition from physicians. [6] It is objected to that this system is fairer - if a medical complaint is acute and life-threatening, a client will reach the front of the line rapidly.

The NHS determines medical requirement in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), a method of quantifying the benefit of medical intervention. [7] It is argued that this method of assigning health care implies some clients should lose in order for others to gain, which QALY is a crude technique of making life and death choices. [8]

Hospital got infections

There have been a number of fatal break outs of antibiotic resistant germs (" super bugs") in NHS hospitals, such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus and Clostridioides difficile infection. [9] This has caused criticism of standards of health across the NHS, with some patients buying personal medical insurance or taking a trip abroad to prevent the viewed risk of catching a "incredibly bug" while in health center. However, the department of health pledged ₤ 50 million for a "deep clean" of all NHS England healthcare facilities in 2007. [10]

Coverage

The absence of availability of some treatments due to their perceived poor cost-effectiveness often results in what some call a "postcode lottery game". [11] [12] The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) are the very first gatekeeper, and examine the expense effectiveness of all drugs. Until they have actually released guidance on the cost and effectiveness of brand-new or pricey medications, treatments and treatments, NHS services are unlikely to use to money courses of treatment. The same of real of the Scottish Medicines Consortium, NICE's counterpart in Scotland. [13]

There has been substantial debate about the public health funding of costly drugs, significantly Herceptin, due to its high expense and perceived limited overall survival. The project waged by cancer patients to get the government to pay for their treatment has actually gone to the greatest levels in the courts and the Cabinet to get it accredited. [14] [15] Your House of Commons Health Select Committee criticised some drug companies for bringing in drugs that cost on and around the ₤ 30,000 limit that is considered the maximum worth of one QALY in the NHS.

Private Finance Initiative

Before the concept of private finance effort (PFI) came to prominence, all brand-new healthcare facility building was by convention moneyed from the Treasury, as it was thought it was best able to raise cash and able to control public sector expense. In June 1994, the Capital Expense Manual (CIM) was published, setting out the regards to PFI contracts. The CIM made it clear that future capital projects (structure of brand-new facilities) needed to take a look at whether PFI was more suitable to utilizing public sector funding. By the end of 1995, 60 reasonably small jobs had actually been prepared for, at a total cost of around ₤ 2 billion. Under PFI, structures were built and serviced by the personal sector, and after that leased back to the NHS. The Labour government elected under Tony Blair in 1997 embraced PFI projects, believing that public costs required to be cut. [16]

Under the personal financing effort, an increasing variety of medical facilities have actually been constructed (or rebuilt) by economic sector consortia, although the government also motivated economic sector treatment centres, so called "surgicentres". [17] There has been significant criticism of this, with a study by a consultancy business which works for the Department of Health showing that for every ₤ 200 million invested in privately financed healthcare facilities the NHS loses 1000 physicians and nurses. The first PFI healthcare facilities contain some 28% less beds than the ones they changed. [18] In addition to this, it has been kept in mind that the return for building business on PFI contracts could be as high as 58%, which in funding medical facilities from the personal instead of public sector cost the NHS almost half a billion pounds more every year. [19]

Scandals

Several prominent medical scandals have taken place within the NHS over the years, such as the Alder Hey organs scandal and the Bristol heart scandal. At Alder Hey Children's Hospital, there was the unauthorised elimination, retention, and disposal of human tissue, consisting of kids's organs, between 1988 and 1995. The official report into the event, the Redfern Report, revealed that Dick van Velzen, the Chair of Foetal and Infant Pathology at Alder Hey, had actually ordered the "dishonest and unlawful stripping of every organ from every child who had actually had a postmortem." In action, it has actually been argued that the scandal brought the issue of organ and tissue donation into the general public domain, and highlighted the benefits to medical research study that result. [20] The Gosport War Memorial Hospital scandal of the 1990s regarded opioid deaths. [21]

The Stafford Hospital scandal in Stafford, England in the late 2000s worried abnormally high death rates amongst clients at the medical facility. [22] [23] Approximately 1200 more patients died in between 2005 and 2008 than would be anticipated for the type and size of hospital [24] [25] based on figures from a death design, but the last Healthcare Commission report concluded it would be deceiving to link the insufficient care to a particular number or series of numbers of deaths. [26] A public query later exposed numerous instances of neglect, incompetence and abuse of patients. [27]

" Lack of self-reliance of checking for security and physical fitness for function"

Unlike in Scotland and Wales which have actually devolved health care, NHS England is operated on behalf of the taxpayer by the UK Parliament and the Department of Health, at the head of which is the Secretary of State for Health.

The group charged in England and Wales with examining if the care provided by the NHS is truly safe and suitable for purpose is the Care Quality Commission, or CQC. Although the CQC describes itself as the "independent regulator of all health and social care services in England" [1], it remains in fact "responsible to the general public, Parliament and the Secretary of State for Health." [2] Archived 31 August 2013 at the Wayback Machine and much of its funding comes from the taxpayer. A minimum of one chairman, one chief executive [3] and a board member [4] of the CQC have actually been singled out for attention by a UK Secretary of State for Health.

There is therefore the potential for a dispute of interest, as both the NHS and the CQC have the very same leadership and both are extremely prone to political disturbance.

In April 2024, Victoria Atkins prompted NHS England to focus on evidence and security in gender dysphoria treatment following concerns raised by the Cass Review. NHS demanded cooperation from adult centers and initiated an evaluation, with Labour supporting evidence-based care. Momentum slammed constraints on gender-affirming care, while Stonewall invited the review's concentrate on kids's wellness. [28] [29]

See likewise