Bolded one section regarding the relative cost differences which I thought was rather damning against the US.Britain's health service makes it the only one of 11 leading industrialised nations where wealth does not determine access to care – providing the most widely accessible treatments at low cost among rich nations, a study has found.
The survey, by US health thinktank the Commonwealth Fund, showed that while a third of American adults "went without recommended care, did not see a doctor when sick, or failed to fill prescriptions because of costs", this figure was only 6% in the UK and 5% in Holland.
In all the countries surveyed except Britain, wealth was a significant factor in access to health, with patients earning less than the national average more likely to report trouble with medical bills and problems getting care because of cost.
The survey, of 19,700 patients in 11 nations, found "substantial differences" among countries on access to care when sick, access after hours, and waiting times for specialised care.
About 70% of British patients reported same- or next-day access to doctors when sick, less than the 93% of Swiss adults reporting rapid access. In contrast, however, only 57% of adults in Sweden and the US, and less than half in Canada and Norway, were seen this quickly.
The NHS was also extremely cost-effective, with spending on health per person almost the lowest in the survey. A person in the UK paid $1,500 less than one in Switzerland and less than half the $7,538 paid by every American for healthcare. Only New Zealand, where one in seven said they skipped hospital visits because of cost, spent less per head.
The report was particularly damning about the US, where it found patients "are far more likely than those in 10 other industrialised nations to go without healthcare because of costs".
Nigel Edwards, acting chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said the report was a "good result for the UK. The issue in many other nations is that you buy insurance to cover for the price of expensive drugs. Or that you need co-payments on hospital treatments…"
Edwards said there were issues with NHS care. "I think if you look at why we are not able to treat patients out of hospital well for, say, diabetes, or why we have high rates of heart disease, or look at cancer survival rates, it would be a different story. But the question is whether the government's plans for the NHS help this."
A government spokesperson said: "The UK lags behind many international healthcare systems on survival rates – for example, for diseases such as cancer or stroke – and the NHS must reform in order to achieve better outcomes."
Meanwhile a government-commissioned report yesterday suggested that national or regional call centres could handle GP appointments under a "radical" change to the system that would save millions. The report, by the Foundation Trust Network, said streamlining "back office" functions in the NHS and "sharing" services would save £600m a year.
However the Department of Health said there were no plans for call centres.
The article does mention the levels of care in certain areas do lag behind other countries, even the US, but speaking as a British citizen I'm amazingly glad we have this system. Overall i think it's the best way to run, what should be, a non profit making organisation.
Anyway, just thought it was worth posting up as healthcare seems to be a popular topic of discussion around here parts.
