 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Cancer / January 2006UK Cancer patients losing out..
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/12/ncanc12.xml&sShe et=/news/2006/01/12/ixhome.html> Cancer patients losing out on £200m a year in benefits 'scandal' By Celia Hall Medical Editor (Filed: 12/01/2006) Cancer patients are missing out on benefits of at least £200 million a year because of the "scandalous" failure to tell them about entitlements, an MPs' committee says today. The health select committee's report on cancer services also criticises the low priority given to prostate cancer in the NHS, a disease that kills 10,000 men a year. While it found that cancer services overall had improved, the MPs said there were still wide differences in waiting times across the country. Forty per cent were still waiting more than two weeks to see a consultant. "Delays heighten anxiety," the MPs said. Edward Leigh, the committee chairman, said: "Terminally ill patients are eligible for financial help but more than three quarters of cancer patients are not told this. This is scandalous. Not all people will wish to claim but some - simply through lack of knowledge - will not be getting the financial support that is so important to them and their family to make their last days more bearable." People in the late stages of cancer who are not expected to survive for six months can have non-means tested disability living allowance for over-65s and attendance allowance for under-65s fast tracked. Allowances can be up to £100 a week. Anyone with cancer may be eligible for support from these benefits or through the means-tested hospital travel costs scheme or the carer's allowance. A Macmillan Cancer Relief spokesman said cancer sufferers could face extra child care costs, laundry, heating, travel costs for daily chemo- or radio-therapy visits, as well as loss of earnings. The report, based on a survey of 4,300 cancer patients in 49 NHS trusts in England, undertaken by the National Audit Office in 2004, says that only 23 per cent of cancer patients are ever told about potential benefits. Today's document calls for a report from Prof Mike Richards, the cancer "tsar", on prostate cancer services in England to explain why they were given a low priority and to set out improvement plans. Patients were "broadly positive" about their experiences, giving high satisfaction to the levels of dignity, privacy and respect offered during NHS treatment. Consultant referral times had improved since 2000. But the report, Tackling Cancer: Improving the Patient Journey, said that more than a quarter of bowel cancer patients had waited more than a month. The condition of one third got worse during the wait. The MPs say that all units should aspire to match the 80 per cent referral within two weeks achieved for breast cancer patients. The Macmillan spokesman said: "The select committee has attacked the lack of access to benefits advice for terminally-ill cancer patients. We hope the Government is listening." John Neate, the chief executive of Prostate Cancer Charity, said the report's findings were "appalling and clearly unacceptable" and urged the Government to respond positively. "Far too many prostate cancer patients are not receiving NHS care and support to the standard they should expect," he said. Rosie Winterton, the health minister, said: "The report also recognises that there is more work to be done. We acknowledge this and have put actions in place to maintain the momentum of improvement." A friend of ours in the UK has prostate cancer. Johnny had to wait THREE MONTHS to start radiation treatment on the NHS. This is just totally appalling. That is why I feel so much better Ken gettting his treatments here in the US versus taking a chance on the NHS. >A friend of ours in the UK has prostate cancer. Johnny had to wait THREE > MONTHS to start radiation treatment on the NHS. This is just totally > appalling. That is why I feel so much better Ken gettting his treatments > here in the US versus taking a chance on the NHS. Here in BC we don't start RT for most patients until they have had several months of hormone ablation therapy. We have the best results in the world. There is no evidence that a wait of 3 months or even more is of any consequence for early stage prostate cancer. >>A friend of ours in the UK has prostate cancer. Johnny had to wait THREE >> MONTHS to start radiation treatment on the NHS. This is just totally [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >There is no evidence that a wait of 3 months or even more is of any >consequence for early stage prostate cancer. The problem in the UK at the moment being patients having to wait far too long to get to see a specialist such as your self Steph:-( Judy had a stage 2 cancer before she was seen by a specialist and she was going to doctors and hospitals for years before that without being diagnosed. pete  SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html >>>A friend of ours in the UK has prostate cancer. Johnny had to wait THREE >>> MONTHS to start radiation treatment on the NHS. This is just totally [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > diagnosed. > pete You can't expect her to see a specialist oncologist until she's diagnosed, Pete >>>>A friend of ours in the UK has prostate cancer. Johnny had to wait THREE >>>> MONTHS to start radiation treatment on the NHS. This is just totally [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >You can't expect her to see a specialist oncologist until she's diagnosed, >Pete We will never know why Judy was allowed to get to be stage 2 before they diagnosed it. But there is an example of the sort of behaviour that gives a clue. A whole load of people were waiting at one hospital recently to have the same treatment Tony Blair had for arythmia. The treatment was considered to be very expensive and the hospital. like many others, was overspent. So they decided to stop doing the treatment and in doing so they canceled out those patients from their waiting list and of course saved the money. My own area hospital featured on tv tonight because it was full and didn't have a single bed. It is reckoned the hospital is far from full but the wards have been closed to save money. The issue is so serious we have clergy organising protest. pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html >>>>>A friend of ours in the UK has prostate cancer. Johnny had to wait >>>>>THREE [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > organising protest. > pete Tony's treatment is very specialised and expensive. The more spent on services like that, and the less there is to replace worn out hips. The NHS and Canadian systems have to do their best for the most people within the budget the taxpayer gives them. The options are to increase taxes until everyone gets everything necessary or desirable right away. But the UK could end up spending 20 % of its GDP on healthcare, instead of 10%. But if that's what you want, your taxes will go up, or the number of policemen and firemen will go down. In a democracy you get what you want. >>>>>>A friend of ours in the UK has prostate cancer. Johnny had to wait >>>>>>THREE [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >But if that's what you want, your taxes will go up, or the number of >policemen and firemen will go down. In a democracy you get what you want. Yes of course and we get it on the NHS too. Sometimes it is not as quick as we would like it to be but we do get treatment eventually and we do of course have the option of going private. pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html > Tony's treatment is very specialised and expensive. The more spent on > services like that, and the less there is to replace worn out hips. The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But if that's what you want, your taxes will go up, or the number of > policemen and firemen will go down. In a democracy you get what you want. That is an excellent point, Americans have not to ration care healthcare as a society. No hard decisions regarding rationing of care. I don't think Americans are ready for those hard choices. . >> Tony's treatment is very specialised and expensive. The more spent on >> services like that, and the less there is to replace worn out hips. The [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > . Of course it's rationed. Just not evenly Yes, but not by the government. There are no National policies. >>> Tony's treatment is very specialised and expensive. The more spent on >>> services like that, and the less there is to replace worn out hips. The [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Of course it's rationed. Just not evenly > Yes, but not by the government. There are no National policies. Of course there are national policies, politicians don't actually say outright 'we won't commit any more money to poor peoples health', they just don't allocate the money. They will, however, give tax incentives......but you have to be earning sufficient money to take advantage of these. Much gets more, as they say. MIKE <snipped> Off topic sort of. Mike, check your emails, please. Steph sent you one. Thanks, J > A friend of ours in the UK has prostate cancer. Johnny had to wait THREE > MONTHS to start radiation treatment on the NHS. This is just totally > appalling. That is why I feel so much better Ken gettting his treatments > here in the US versus taking a chance on the NHS. But is the same treatment free in US? Remember UK NHS medical treatment is free, at point of use. And that is no matter what income the patient is on. Now is that just as true in US? Derek >> A friend of ours in the UK has prostate cancer. Johnny had to wait THREE >> MONTHS to start radiation treatment on the NHS. This is just totally [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Now is that just as true in US? Yes. Provided you do not choose to go to work. It is called Medicaid. Additionally, no hospital may refuse someone who shows up for emergency treatment including any non-emergency follow-up. Emergency being showing up at 3AM saying "I keep having to get up in the middle of the night and pee". If you choose to get a (legitimate)job, you will have to pay for your treatment. Additionally, both the Radiology clinic that treated me and the chemotherapy clinic that treated me have programs to treat people who declare themselves "unable to pay". In this country we also have food, housing, energy and transportation available gratis. The only condition is that you can not work for a living. If you will breed children you cannot afford, additional money will be available to you. (If this sounds cynical, it is only because once I had a close friend who was dating a young woman receiving all these programs. We all sat around one evening and figured the value of what she was getting. It was greater than my after-tax income from a strenuous and dangerous job. And that is without figuring her medical or legal expenses. She wouldn't marry him because it would reduce her income. She was later arrested for dealing cocaine from her off-the-record job as a barmaid. We [the taxpayers] paid her legal expenses also. She borrowed the two kids back from her mom to sit in the courtroom and was given admonishment and a suspended sentence. Larry left her about that point. I am sorry but I do not remember her name. Connie comes to mind, but I am no longer sure. (for any of you cynics, she was not a member of any minority group)) But your initial question was could you recieve free treatment for prostate cancer in the US. The answer is yes. >>> A friend of ours in the UK has prostate cancer. Johnny had to wait THREE >>> MONTHS to start radiation treatment on the NHS. This is just totally [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > prostate > cancer in the US. The answer is yes. But if you had an early stage prostate cancer in the US, and you didn't have insurance, would you get your radiotherapy within 2 weeks? I don't think so > But if you had an early stage prostate cancer in the US, and you didn't > have insurance, would you get your radiotherapy within 2 weeks? I don't > think so There is a self-policing part of this one. It isn't the treatment they wouldn't get...it is the diagnosis. If it was the indigent, they might if some intern felt like running extra tests like PSA for the hell of it.* But if they were symptomless and mere mortals.... you are right ... no one would ever know unless they bought a physical. And people without insurance don't consider those worth bothering about. Even with insurance, an early stage prostate cancer would not get a PSA test unless pushed by an insurance Co (maybe life ins. not health) or a doctor. Do asymptomatic people line up for PSA tests and fecal blood tests in you NHS? *Steph, it does happen in this country. With automated testing, student projects, and just idle curiosity, unnecessary tests have almost no off the books cost. 30 years ago that was already the case. God knows what they do now. I dated a young lady who managed a large hospital testing lab in Charlotte and before she would go out with me, she ran a complete blood test on me. All the staff did it. Probably as illegal as hell, certainly misappropriation, but no real way of enforcing. >>> A friend of ours in the UK has prostate cancer. Johnny had to wait >>> THREE MONTHS to start radiation treatment on the NHS. This is just [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Now is that just as true in US? <snip> > Yes. Provided you do not choose to go to work. It is called Medicaid. > Additionally, no hospital may refuse someone who shows up for [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > But your initial question was could you recieve free treatment for > prostate cancer in the US. The answer is yes. Chris, I can see this experience raised your hackles, & it probably would mine too. There are always people who 'play the system' & get away with it. No matter what system. I know a government auditor who prides himself on his ability to accumulate frequent flyer miles - lots & lots of them - by routing himself as far out of the way as possible. So we taxpayers not only subsidize his vacations but he draws salary for these boondoggles. I could stay mad all the time if I ruminated on these & ohter abuses long enough. Sometimes I do. I am actually more concerned about the underserved, the working poor who work full time but at jobs that either don't include benefits or have salaries so low that workers can't afford insurance or treatment. Many Walmart employees qualify for government programs because of low salaries . Many people/families make too much to qualify for the programs but not enough to afford health care. Many elderly people can only aford to fill part of their prescriptions or stretch them by taking reduced doses. As healthcare costs continue to rise, fewer & fewer people can afford it. Then the load from patients who do not pay increase treatment costs & insurance rates which, in turn, make them affordable to still fewer people until we have a viscious circle going. And we do. The wait times to be seen in an emergency room are often staggering. I have also read that Denver-area hospitals are becoming more strengent in their free treatment criteria. Emergency can be defined as a life or death situation. Or the patient may be given enough treatment to remove an immediate threat & released. So poor families may spend the night in the emergency room with a sick child & then go to work the next day? Even affluent people with great jobs & abundant assets can be brought down by a serious illness. Once we lose our insurance for a couple of months, a preexisting condition exclusion takes effect. Even if we get back onto a group plan, the preexting condition may not be covered. Is your hair standing on end yet? There may be ways to obtain help, but many people who need it most are left dangling for a variety of reasons. If you have a marginal job, chances are you cannot take off work to apply for help. Or maybe you're too sick, upset, confused, unsophisticated to figure out what to do. You don't have a computer (for research) & neither does anyone you know. Fortunately, some hospitals have trained personnel to guide patients to resources. When Socks came home from the pharmacy with his first Kytril (chemo anti- nausea drug) prescription, he told me the pharmacist said that without insurance it was $50/pill & some people would give their 1st-born child to get it. This upset both of us & made us feel slightly guilty. Without insurance you puke up your guts? This subject is depressing me. Because I have no answer. I'm not sure there is a good answer at this point. Fig Figgertoes wrote Many interesting points so I will break her letter into parts to try to make them shorter and more reasonable to read: ... > I could stay mad all the time if I ruminated on these & > ohter abuses long enough. Sometimes I do. I hadn't even started on inside abuse. But I am certain there couldn't be any in the British or Canadian systems. <ouch - bit my tongue> Figgertoes wrote Many interesting points so I will break her letter into parts to try to make them shorter and more reasonable to read: > I am actually more concerned about the underserved, the working poor who > work full time but at jobs that either don't include benefits or have > salaries so low that workers can't afford insurance or treatment. Many > Walmart employees qualify for government programs because of low salaries > . This is my big concern too. The system is stacked in favor of the totally lazy at the expense of the people at the low end of the working scale. Walmart is a special case. I detest Walmart. They are doing more to destroy our economy than any other company. There is the apparent benefit that people will get things they otherwise could not afford. But the costs are not gone, they are just not shown in the price tag. They are picked up by society as a whole in destroyed communities and lost industries. Walmart is a small town killer. But I digress > Figgertoes wrote Many interesting points so I will break her letter into > parts to try to make them shorter and more reasonable to read: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > is > a small town killer. But I digress I hate Walmart too. But I shop there....... Figgertoes wrote Many interesting points so I will break her letter into parts to try to make them shorter and more reasonable to read: > Many people/families make too much to qualify for the programs but not > enough to afford health care. Many elderly people can only aford to fill > part of their prescriptions or stretch them by taking reduced doses. As I have my 85-year-old mother living with me now and my 72-year-old mother-in-law in the hospital with (probably end stage) cancer, I feel somewhat qualified to comment on this one. My mother is Medicare and State of Pennsylvania's prescription drug plan. I truly believe that she and my father before he died is/was overmedicated. They both are prescribed medicines that conflict and medicines that counteraction the efficacy (doubt I spelled that right) of other drugs. When I picked my mother up in PA, she was hospitalized because her Coumadin had interacted with her Furosimide to cause her to dehydrate and bleed internally concurrently. Why is she taking them? Her father died of a stroke and she is terrified of the same thing happening and sold a doctor on it. Is it effective? Well, she hasn't had a stroke. Is it cause and effect? We will never know, she might not have had one anyway. My point is though that she is overmedicated and at government expense. There is no real checks or balances in the system. So the govt gives her a shoebox of medicine at a small copayment and co-insurance easily affordable from her social security. She has always been responsible so still is. My MIL on the other hand has always been irresponisble. Same social security. No co-insurance - beer and cigs instead. If you gave her the medicine outright, she wouldn't take it, or certainly not correctly. Even with Medicaid avoided treatment for cancer for three years because she didn't want to face it until it was unavoidable. My point here is that there is more than money that controls these things. There is freedom. And that has to include the freedom to make bad choices. Do we enslave the population? Force them to take medicine they don't want and medical treatments they are afraid of? Where would we stop that? Drag them kicking and screaming into hospitals? But few seem to have any trouble with forcing the population to pay for an all-inclusive health care system that they may or may not use. Is there any less force in that? As > healthcare costs continue to rise, fewer & fewer people can afford it. > Then the load from patients who do not pay increase treatment costs & > insurance rates which, in turn, make them affordable to still fewer > people until we have a viscious circle going. And we do. This is a very valid point. That last person to actually pay is going to have a whopper of a bill. Figgertoes wrote Many interesting points so I will break her letter into parts to try to make them shorter and more reasonable to read: > The wait times to be seen in an emergency room are often staggering. I > have also read that Denver-area hospitals are becoming more strengent in > their free treatment criteria. Emergency can be defined as a life or > death situation. Or the patient may be given enough treatment to remove > an immediate threat & released. So poor families may spend the night in > the emergency room with a sick child & then go to work the next day? Too general. What is a sick child? Here in Atlanta people use the Emergency room as a family doctor. Treat a cold? That sounds like an inappropriate use of the service. Appendicitis? Appropriate. That is why there is triage. Did the family even approach a doctor? Or do they just buy the media propaganda that it it too expensive. Doctors are not heartless people. Or are they just afraid they will have to make a choice and give something else up? > Even affluent people with great jobs & abundant assets can be brought > down by a serious illness. Once we lose our insurance for a couple of > months, a preexisting condition exclusion takes effect. Even if we get > back onto a group plan, the preexting condition may not be covered. Is > your hair standing on end yet? And that will happen in the UK and Canada too. There is more to this than just the medical cost. People like us have lost work or employment in worst cases. I had sick leave and I bought disability insurance. I did without to have them. I have co-workers who after 20 years on the job have saved not one minute of sick leave nor paid the $8 a month for simple disability insurancemuch less the $20 I paid. I am supposed to feel sorry for them. Why? They took their sick leave at the beach - I took mine at the Cancer clinic. Sympathy seems inappropriate. I have another co-worker who is angry because he can not now insure his wife because she has developed diabetes. Would he be angry if he could not get an insurance company to sell him auto insurance to fix his car the day after an accident? Somewhere along the line we have become conditioned to the idea that we have no role in assuring our own survival. We are owed by everyone else our right to live. Well, if we do, we again have more costs than money. And we as individuals will still have to pay those costs as well as the financial ones that we still pay, but will now merely divert to someone else writing the check for us sight unseen. Because if we decide that society owes us treatment for our every ill, they had better demand our prophylactic help before the disease. My co-worker's wife's diabetes? This social contract will need to demand that sugar is as proscribed to the entire population as heroin. My wife's mother and grandmother both had uterine cancer. Managing societal cost to ensure health care for all should demand a prophylactic hysterectomy at an early age. My throat cancer? I didn't smoke, so there would need to be some other societal lesson learned to protect the next generation. But prevention will have to be part of the deal. And if the Government controls these purse strings, they will have every right to control our behavior. Medicine is not merely the treatment of what happened. > There may be ways to obtain help, but many people who need it most are > left dangling for a variety of reasons. If you have a marginal job, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Fortunately, some hospitals have trained personnel to guide patients to > resources. But whatever you do. Do not plan for the future. Do not work hard to educate yourself. Do not work hard at succeeding in your employment. Do not plan for your future. Do not plan for illness. Do not plan for retirement. These things are not your responsibility. Do not procreate responsibly. Buy toys, entertainment, and societally legal (and illegal)drugs instead of insurance. These responsibilities are someone else's. They are the Government's. ( Fig - I am not directing my rant at you. You didn't suggest any of these things. I am the staff benefits person in my department and frustrated by people cavalier attitude to their own maintenance and the mass-media's cattle-drive towards individual irresponsibility) In my state, MA - for HMOs there is no waiting period. I have seen people sign up one day and the next day qualify for hundreds of thousands of care. Where I work and my husband works I have seen people not elect healthcare because they didn't have the money to pay for the copay - which can run from $20week to $75 dollars a week, yet these people drive new cars and go on vacations. People who choose self employment it is very difficult to get insurance since they don't have the group buying power. My son who works part time in a grocery store can buy good insurance for $3/week, many self employed people work in the store to get this benefit ( you only have to work an average of $12/weeK) In response to Medicaid, my research is that Wal-Mart said it pays its store workers an average of $9.36 an hour in Florida, adding that it offers competitively priced health care to full-time workers after six months and to part-time workers after two years. My understanding is that the state offers to continue Medicaid while Medicaid recipients transition from not working to working full time. My state often allows the Medicaid recieptant to get benefits while working with often include free childcare. It seems like this also happens in Florida. http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/25/State/Lured_employers_now_t.shtml When I had Kytril and finished treatment, I had plenty left over, I left them with my oncologist, I know someone who couldn't afford it who benefit. I agree that there are no easy answers, but I wouldn't trust the US government to administrate health care and have my choices taken away. > When I had Kytril and finished treatment, I had plenty left over, I left > them with my oncologist, I know someone who couldn't afford it who > benefit. That is what I did with my liquid food. Somebody got a month's worth (free I hope). > I agree that there are no easy answers, but I wouldn't trust the US > government to administrate health care and have my choices taken away. But the Government does such a good job with immigration, the post office, and the VA Hospitals. > I have seen people not elect healthcare > because they didn't have the money to pay for the copay - which can run from > $20week to $75 dollars a week, yet these people drive new cars and go on > vacations. Same sort of thing happens in UK People will often claim they can't afford to bea private patient, They can't afford medical insurance, and they moan anb about waiting times with NHS. It's because they expect, demand, free care. > People who choose self employment it is very difficult to get insurance > since they don't have the group buying power. My son who works part time in > a grocery store can buy good insurance for $3/week, many self employed > people work in the store to get this benefit ( you only have to work an > average of $12/weeK) Sometimes though it's a case of what people want to spend their money on. > In response to Medicaid, my research is that Wal-Mart said it pays its > store workers an average of $9.36 an hour in Florida, adding that it offers [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I agree that there are no easy answers, but I wouldn't trust the US > government to administrate health care and have my choices taken away. I sort of have same view with UK NHS in that I have made my choice to have medical insurance, as that way I get more options, more choices. Yes it's expensive but I feel worth it. Derek Steph, I have to confess my ignorance here. We always talk about the patient, but what of the provider. Are you an actual employee of the Canadian Government? Or does your system act as a conduit from the taxpayers to corporate providers ( a City or Province or Authority, not just a Business type corporation) for whom you work? If the Government, what freedom do you have to change employment locale or practice type? What if you are assigned to less than desirable work conditions such as graveyard shift at a hospital? (Somebody has to do it) Do you have any recourse or do you just take what you are given? What if you have a manager who takes a natural dislike to you or vice versa? Or that you feel is a petty bureaucrat or tyrant? In other words, how do you deal with the petty annoyances of the working world in that system? Is the UK system the same or different? > Steph, I have to confess my ignorance here. We always talk about the > patient, but what of the provider. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Province or Authority, not just a Business type corporation) for whom you > work? The BC Cancer Agency is funded by the provincial government from tax revenues. About 2/3rds of the oncologists are salaried. I am actually in the other third. A med onc and I have a partnership, and we contract our services to the BCCA. > If the Government, what freedom do you have to change employment locale or > practice type? Complete freedom to work anywhere in Canada. Of course, I couldn't work as a dermatologist, because my specialty qualification is radiation oncology! > What if you are assigned to less than desirable work conditions such as > graveyard shift at a hospital? (Somebody has to do it) Do you have any > recourse or do you just take what you are given? I do on call on a rota with my colleagues - a week (7 days, 24/7) on call every 7-8 weeks. But there isn't much night activity in radiation oncology, so I'm not woken often. > What if you have a manager who takes a natural dislike to you or vice > versa? > Or that you feel is a petty bureaucrat or tyrant? Nobody can tell a specialist what to do. We are independent practitioners inour professional sphere, whether we are salaried or contracted. Same is tru in the UK. Of course, the administrators can do stupid things which affect my working environment. If they do, I have no qualms about telling them. We do have an onc who is our department head, but he's kind of "first among equals" and has to do his job by consensus. > In other words, how do you deal with the petty annoyances of the working > world in that system? The same way we all do. Try to put up with the things I can't change, change the things I can, and have the sense to know the difference. > Is the UK system the same or different? At the level of the specialist (consultant) it's much the same. Most consultants in the NHS are salaried employees, but still professionally independent. >> Steph, I have to confess my ignorance here. We always talk about the >> patient, but what of the provider. >> >> Are you an actual employee of the Canadian Government? Or does your ... > The BC Cancer Agency is funded by the provincial government from tax > revenues. About 2/3rds of the oncologists are salaried. I am actually in > the other third. A med onc and I have a partnership, and we contract our > services to the BCCA. I think this answers the bulk of my question. about 12 or 13 years ago Hillary Clinton wrote a proposed National Health Plan for us. I actually read the thing at the time. To me it read like enslaving the medical community - even bantying around the word prison a number of times. My only encounters with Government medical care were in the Army and the Veteran's Administration. Neither of those is anything I would ever want to return to again for service. The Army doctors had no more freedom than I did. ("Allright, all you patients form a line at attention over there" Think I'm kidding?) The VA docs could seek employment elsewhere although I got the impression that some might be unemployable in systems where the patient mattered. ... > At the level of the specialist (consultant) it's much the same. Most > consultants in the NHS are salaried employees, but still professionally > independent. I'm not entirely sure I understand. No one pressures you about spending or Saturday morning quarterbacks your calls? >>> Steph, I have to confess my ignorance here. We always talk about the >>> patient, but what of the provider. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I'm not entirely sure I understand. No one pressures you about spending or > Saturday morning quarterbacks your calls? Specialists are like judges - the entire basis of their being is professional independence. The BCCA can move my office, it can change my secretary, it can even try to change my clinic times. What it cannot do is direct the advice I give to my patients. I'm paid to give independent opinions, with my primary focus what is best for my patient. If the patient accepts, I will then use all my skills to make sure the treatment is done properly. If the patient rejects my opinion and advice, end of story. The patient can not tell me what investigations or treatments to do, and I can't make them do something they don't want to do. It's not a client-professional relationship like a lawyer, it's a patient-physician relationship. We are both independent. No-one pressures me about spending other than myself. I don't waste money. No-one quarterbacks my calls, but if I'm doing my job right that shouldn't happen, because as a group, all the oncologists in our system regularly sit down and agree treatment policies based on the evidence. So you can be pretty sure that wherever in BC you are seen, you'll get basically the same (good) advice and basically the same (good) treatment. If I did something way outside our agreed guidelines, I would certainly be open to criticism, or a lawsuit. The stats for survival and measures of patient satisfaction bear out our approach. We have the best survival figures in North America for most common cancers, and we do it much more cost-effectively than south of the border > I'm not entirely sure I understand. No one pressures you about spending or > Saturday morning quarterbacks your calls? & don't forget the gag orders -- not being allowed to mention "certain subjects" if you are gov't paid (employment/salary) or in some cases under some gov't programs. bj >In my state, MA - for HMOs there is no waiting period. I have seen people >sign up one day and the next day qualify for hundreds of thousands of care. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >I agree that there are no easy answers, but I wouldn't trust the US >government to administrate health care and have my choices taken away. I believe anyone in the UK on a visit or even as an illegal immigrant gets full health care. We call it free health care but it isn't really free as everyone has to pay for a national insurance contribution from their salary or wage packet including self employed people. The only real free stuff is for immigrants or people who are passing through I think. The rest of us pay and some even have private insurance as well but the NI contribution is mandatory. pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html > I believe anyone in the UK on a visit or even as an illegal immigrant > gets full health care. We call it free health care but it isn't really [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but the NI contribution is mandatory. > pete Exactly the same here, although we call it Medicaid. Go to any ER at night and you would not think you are even in this hemishere even though our free stuff is for our citizen poor too. The problem is not that they use it; it is that they abuse it. Since it is free they come for things that you or I would not even go to a regular doctor for. Nor do they even ask what an ordinary doctor would charge them. My GP has never even had one enter his office; and we are in an area that has become more than 50% Mexican/South American in the last 10 years. FYI. On the news I always here complaining about the minimum wage which is $5.15/hour. The going rate for an illegal alien (politically correctly called an "undocumented worker") is $8.50 an hour / minimum six hours / lunch to be provided (and sometimes a cerveza as part of the deal) /and transportation to and from the place of employment. And they do not pay taxes, social security or medicare. >FYI. On the news I always here complaining about the minimum wage which is >$5.15/hour. The going rate for an illegal alien (politically correctly >called an "undocumented worker") is $8.50 an hour / minimum six hours / >lunch to be provided (and sometimes a cerveza as part of the deal) /and >transportation to and from the place of employment. And they do not pay >taxes, social security or medicare. Our (uk) undocumented workers are not allowed to work. They still have to live though so crime goes with them which is hardly surprising really. pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html >>FYI. On the news I always here complaining about the minimum wage which is >>$5.15/hour. The going rate for an illegal alien (politically correctly [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to live though so crime goes with them which is hardly surprising > really. Ours legally need a visa to work. Chris is stating the reality, not the law. We get more than our share of crime from illegals, too, and our solution is to send them back to their home country, only to have them come back and commit more crimes. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. >>>FYI. On the news I always here complaining about the minimum wage which is >>>$5.15/hour. The going rate for an illegal alien (politically correctly [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >solution is to send them back to their home country, only to have them >come back and commit more crimes. Our solution appears to be to keep them here in limbo for years and then send them home. This is at a time when this country is short of people who are prepared to have families and provide the next generation of tax payers. pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html mness215@comcast.net said... > Exactly the same here, although we call it Medicaid. Go to any ER at night > and you would not think you are even in this hemishere even though our free [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > office; and we are in an area that has become more than 50% Mexican/South > American in the last 10 years. Same here except that National Health GPs do not charge us directly at point of sale, as it were. Go to any A & E dept at night... And for this our medical staff are overworked, sometimes snatching a few minutes' sleep at a time. No wonder we occasionally (and thankfully it /is/ only occasionally) hear of mistakes being made. news:YdGdnQjHyvXgB1beRVn-uQ@comcast.com... > > I believe anyone in the UK on a visit or even as an illegal immigrant > > gets full health care. We call it free health care but it isn't really [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > is that they abuse it. Since it is free they come for things that you or I > would not even go to a regular doctor for. Because you need to pay to see your regular doctor don't you! Please remember, most people in UK do not pay to see their regular doctor, because, no matter how high person's income, a visit to the doctor is free. Lets be more blunt, and to the point: Aall the medical care, all the drugs, all the doctor's and nurses time that Mr Turtil's wife has had is free for her, she pays nothing. There are no medical bills, so no worry about costs. Why not, because this is the NHS service! Now would the US give out exactly same free service to *anyone* in US? And I mean anyone at all? Come-on Chris why bother with insurance if you can get *everything* for free? That's the crux ofi it, isn't it, you can't get it all free! Derek turtill@hotmail.com said... > >I agree that there are no easy answers, but I wouldn't trust the US > >government to administrate health care and have my choices taken away. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > think. The rest of us pay and some even have private insurance as well > but the NI contribution is mandatory. True, up to a point. It's a popular misconception that the NHS is funded by NI payments; in fact however it's not. NI is more or less just another way of levying a tax on income. The NHS is funded not by one particular taxation method in particular but by the public purse, which is paid for by all of us regardless of income whenever we pay tax - which we do, every time we purchase something and pay VAT or other duty thereon. The same public purse provides for the education services, civil defence, the salaries of government employees/civil servants - everything except Council tax, and even that gets a contribution (I think) from central funds. >True, up to a point. It's a popular misconception that the NHS is >funded by NI payments; in fact however it's not. NI is more or less [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >servants - everything except Council tax, and even that gets a >contribution (I think) from central funds. Yes of course that is correct. The NHS also has to take care of the operations that are go wrong in private health care. pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html > I believe anyone in the UK on a visit or even as an illegal immigrant > gets full health care. No that's wrong, as I've posted before. I'm a UK citizen as well as Canadian, but because I've lived outside the country for 17 years, I have to pay for any health care I get in the UK Maggis Thatcher invented that. If I went back to live in the UK, I wouldn't be covered by the NHS for free until I'd been in residence for 6 months. > We call it free health care but it isn't really > free as everyone has to pay for a national insurance contribution from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but the NI contribution is mandatory. > pete >> I believe anyone in the UK on a visit or even as an illegal immigrant >> gets full health care. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >If I went back to live in the UK, I wouldn't be covered by the NHS for free >until I'd been in residence for 6 months. I do not understand that as all immigrants are treated! Nearly all of them have no connection with this country????? pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html >>> I believe anyone in the UK on a visit or even as an illegal immigrant >>> gets full health care. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > them have no connection with this country????? > pete It sounds like the same system we have. The laws apply only to those who try to obey them. Try to obey one, you will have to obey them all. Be an outlaw and no will will care. Steph is part of the system.He has chosen to try, therefore he must obey every little nuance of the law and not get free service. Sneak into the country and it is all yours... BTW, having done many border crossings into various countries, The US and Great Britain are the most difficult to enter legally. But Canada is getting harder. >>>> I believe anyone in the UK on a visit or even as an illegal immigrant >>>> gets full health care. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Great Britain are the most difficult to enter legally. But Canada is >getting harder. It is easy to enter the UK illegally. I see immigrants walking out of the local docks very often. At one time the dockers tried to report some immigrants but they were told to give them directions to Harwich. I am sure it is much more difficult to do legally. pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html >>> I believe anyone in the UK on a visit or even as an illegal immigrant >>> gets full health care. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > them have no connection with this country????? > pete If I was a refugee I would certainly be covered. But not as I'm just an ordinary citizen. I'm not sure what the situation is with bona fide immigrants >>>> I believe anyone in the UK on a visit or even as an illegal immigrant >>>> gets full health care. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >I'm not sure what the situation is with bona fide immigrants Like someone else has already commented Steph. You would be penalised for being honest. If you just came here as a visitor I cannot see you being refused any treatment. I do know for a fact the immigrants get full medical care even if they are illegals. pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html > If I was a refugee I would certainly be covered. > But not as I'm just an ordinary citizen. > > I'm not sure what the situation is with bona fide immigrants They are treated same as anyone else. I some people seem to forget the difference between legal, and illegal immigrants. And I agree with your point that a visitor to UK would not receive *all* medical care for free, if they did there would be mo need for travel medical insurance. Derek >I am actually more concerned about the underserved, the working poor who >work full time but at jobs that either don't include benefits or have >salaries so low that workers can't afford insurance or treatment. Don't forget many low paid workers could afford medical insurance If and only if, they got their spending priorities right. > Many Walmart employees qualify for government programs because of low > salaries Many people/families make too much to qualify for the programs > but not enough to afford health care. But consider what they do spend their money on! Smoking, drinking alcohol, cars, more tha one holiday away every year. Eating out in restaurants every week, and so on. Nothing wrong with enjoying life but it's a case of how often one does it, and getting priorities right. One last point to consider, we are all equally to blame for companies that pay low salaries. This is because we all demand low prices and low fees for goods and services. Derek >But is the same treatment free in the US? No, but we didn't have the luxury of time to get Ken on radiation. His surgeon and rad dr. said he has to start within 2 2 1/2 weeks after discharge from the hospital. We discussed going back to the UK for treatment and we just couldn't take a chance on the NHS. > >But is the same treatment free in the US? > > No, but we didn't have the luxury of time to get Ken on radiation. His > surgeon and rad dr. said he has to start within 2 2 1/2 weeks after > discharge from the hospital. We discussed going back to the UK for > treatment and we just couldn't take a chance on the NHS. Where on earth did they get that figure from? >A friend of ours in the UK has prostate cancer. Johnny had to wait THREE >MONTHS to start radiation treatment on the NHS. This is just totally >appalling. That is why I feel so much better Ken gettting his treatments >here in the US versus taking a chance on the NHS. The TV programs have been full of the lack of treatment for cancer patients in the NHS. Apparently there are 300 radiology people being trained atm instead of 900 needed. In Suffolk where I live even the church is protesting and organising protest about the situation. pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html >>A friend of ours in the UK has prostate cancer. Johnny had to wait THREE >>MONTHS to start radiation treatment on the NHS. This is just totally [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > church is protesting and organising protest about the situation. > pete The latest figures from the cancer services of the NHS suggest that most patients see a consultant within 2 weeks, and those who need urgent treatment get it immediately. Some people do wait if the problem is not urgent, but that's the same in every public funded system. And in private systems like the US, those without health insurance certainly wait......... >>>A friend of ours in the UK has prostate cancer. Johnny had to wait THREE >>>MONTHS to start radiation treatment on the NHS. This is just totally [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >urgent, but that's the same in every public funded system. And in private >systems like the US, those without health insurance certainly wait......... That is true once a patient is on the consultants list. The unofficial list is the one waiting to get onto the consultant list. In the case of prostate cancer some patients wait 6 month to get onto the specialist list and then it may only be two weeks. pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html >>>>A friend of ours in the UK has prostate cancer. Johnny had to wait THREE >>>>MONTHS to start radiation treatment on the NHS. This is just totally [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > specialist list and then it may only be two weeks. > pete The specialist can't do anything until the patient is referred. Once referred, most patients are seen within 2 weeks >>>>>A friend of ours in the UK has prostate cancer. Johnny had to wait THREE >>>>>MONTHS to start radiation treatment on the NHS. This is just totally [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >The specialist can't do anything until the patient is referred. Once >referred, most patients are seen within 2 weeks The throttle is upon being referred. pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html > The latest figures from the cancer services of the NHS suggest that most > patients see a consultant within 2 weeks, and those who need urgent > treatment get it immediately. Some people do wait if the problem is not > urgent, but that's the same in every public funded system. And in private > systems like the US, those without health insurance certainly wait......... Actually, they just go to an emergency room and stiff the hospital for the bill. The hospital splits the cost up and adds it to the bills of their paying customers. I'm pretty sure that the hospital I was treated in says in writing that no one will ever be refused full treatment for inability to pay. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. In the US it depends on what type of government funding where or not they have to provide free care. Most hospitals since they get federal grants do have to accept every patient. We have people literally get off the airplane for foreign countries. and come to the hospital for treatment. Would they get a bone marrow transplant , no. Would they get emergent care absolutely including any emergent cancer care or cardiac surgery if needed. I have worked all my career in the Boston area, and never seen a person turned away for lack of money. This may not be true in all of the US but I hear from the majority of my colleagues that urgent care is never denied. My daughter did a semester in Australia, she had to pay a mandatory Australian healthcare insurance premium. It didn't matter that our private health care insurance would cover any emergent issues. Furthermore she had an American Express card. She sprained her ankle quite badly in Melbourne, she went to the emergency room, was denied care, turned away flat. Was told to go home and saw an orthopedist here, the damage due to scarring, was so extensive she had to see an ankle specialist. Now she has to have surgery. I am appalled, it wasn't a matter of money since - even if the hospital she would have charged the expense (and we would get our money back for our insurance company) and I still don't know why I had to pay Australia $500 for medical care when they caused her damage. > In the US it depends on what type of government funding where or not they > have to provide free care. Most hospitals since they get federal grants do [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This may not be true in all of the US but I hear from the majority of my > colleagues that urgent care is never denied. 1) how do Americans (or anyone who can prove residency in the US), with no money nor Insurance and not on medicaid get diagnosed? 2) how do Americans, with no money nor Insurance and not on medicaid (who, for example, have skin lesions that they are unsure if they are cancerous or not) get treatment? 3) How do they find out which hospital (near them) gets the federal grant? 4) Do they just walk in and say "I think I might have cancer (or insert here other health problem)" and they get tests for free ? J >> In the US it depends on what type of government funding where or not they >> have to provide free care. Most hospitals since they get federal grants [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> needed. I have worked all my career in the Boston area, and never seen a >> person turned away for lack of money. >> This may not be true in all of the US but I hear from the majority of my >> colleagues that urgent care is never denied. > > 1) how do Americans (or anyone who can prove residency in the US), with no > money nor Insurance and not on medicaid get diagnosed? They show up at the hospital. > 2) how do Americans, with no money nor Insurance and not on medicaid > (who, for example, have skin lesions that they are unsure if they are > cancerous or not) get treatment? They show up at the hospital > 3) How do they find out which hospital (near them) gets the federal grant? Not the "the Federal grant". Any Federal grant. So, it doesn't matter. Like colleges, they all do. Service and friendless are uneven, so word of mouth gets around to the best treatment. > 4) Do they just walk in and say "I think I might have cancer (or insert > here other health problem)" and they get tests for free ? Almost that simple. They have to say "It hurts" or "Doctor what is this?". >> 4) Do they just walk in and say "I think I might have cancer (or insert >> here other health problem)" and they get tests for free ? > > Almost that simple. They have to say "It hurts" or "Doctor what is this?". Chris I feel your pain, American doctors are so afraid of being sued they will do what they have to do. Also some hospitals ( Kaiser Hospitals) do not have to take patients excpet their own except in emergent situtations. I don't know what the answer is, I don't think I would like socialized medicine although the US system has plenty of issues. > > 1) how do Americans (or anyone who can prove residency in the US), with no > > money nor Insurance and not on medicaid get diagnosed? > > They show up at the hospital. Right what if they do have money but don't with to pay? > > 2) how do Americans, with no money nor Insurance and not on medicaid > > (who, for example, have skin lesions that they are unsure if they are > > cancerous or not) get treatment? > > They show up at the hospital But if they do have money and just choose not to pay? > > 3) How do they find out which hospital (near them) gets the federal grant? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Almost that simple. They have to say "It hurts" or "Doctor what is this?". Do they need to show proof they have no money? Derek There is no residency requirement for treatment at a US hospitals. Most urban centers have a public hospital which means open access to all. In Boston it is Boston Medical Center, in New York it is Bellevue , In Chicago it is Cook County,in New Orleans it was Charity Hospital, etc. Usually these are owned by the city or county not the Federal government but get financial aide. The clients are treated in free clinics and the care is quite good. The down side is these hospitals are usually in the worst part of the cities, you are treated in clinics usually by medical students who are overseen by seasoned doctors, think ER the TV show. Would one of these institutions, treat a person with suspect skin cancer absolutely, you would have to establish primary care team have them evaluate you and then they would send a person to a derm clinic. The clinic is crowded and the waits are long. I would plan on spending most of the day for a routine appointment. Some private hospitals offer free care, you do have to have residency requirement since it is state funded. Care is rendered and the patient is not responsible the threshold for this is higher then Medicaid. Would they treat a person for suspected skin care? Often they have screening clinics which are free to all, if further treatment they would refer you to a public hospital or there teaching clinic which you would be asked to pay what you could afford. Any acute over rides all the above, if a patient had an obvious case of cancer, angina, etc, and needed to be admitted most hospitals would do the treatment regardless of cost. Some hospitals will dump the patients to the public hospital for extended treatment such as chemo or radiation. I have witnessed visitors from England who have been denied surgery come over to visit family to have extensive treatment at no cost to them ( only what the patient states they can afford). I have witnessed patients from the Caribbean islands acutely ill come it from the airport and get admitted, the treatment they get is no different then the person with the best insurance. Post illness, they would be referred to a free or public clinic. When I have traveled or my children travel I wonder what type of treatment we would receive, I was less than impressed with Australian Healthcare. Alex > There is no residency requirement for treatment at a US hospitals. Most > urban centers have a public hospital which means open access to all. I am not so sure it's as simple as that. My brother, in UK, used to work in US. He lived and worked over there for 10 years before he moved back to UK and retired. His wife is also from UK and if either of them needed medical care while in US they had to pay for it. Well ok their insurance paid! They even had to pay for treatment if say they came back to UK for a holiday. Derek >> In the US it depends on what type of government funding where or not they >> have to provide free care. Most hospitals since they get federal grants do [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >get treatment? >3) How do they find out which hospital (near them) gets the federal grant? There are virtually no hospitals that don't get such grants, however many are extremely good at finding ways to 'dump' such patients onto other hospitals. Genrally any 'county' or 'city' hospital is absolutely guaranteed to have to take anyone. What actually happens is those costs get dumped onto those who can pay, and are not subject to contract rates either via Medicare/Medicaid, or PPO/HMO contracts. In other the words the working poor often end up bankrupt as a result. >4) Do they just walk in and say "I think I might have cancer (or insert here >other health problem)" and they get tests for free ? >J > >> In the US it depends on what type of government funding where or not they > >> have to provide free care. Most hospitals since they get federal grants do [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Medicare/Medicaid, or PPO/HMO contracts. In other the words the > working poor often end up bankrupt as a result. Yes, well thanks all. I've just been reading back some older posts (past 3 - 5 years) and Americans come over the border for treatment (cancer and other) in Canada. Not saying how they get away with it. I guess we're paying for it as well, through our taxes. And in so doing, they're backing up our wait lists, so I"m ticked ! Yet, I expect if Canadians go down there, they're expected to have insurance or pay up. So Canadians, unless it's something really, really rare, stay where you are or go establish residency in BC and get your treatment there. :p Wait. That doesn't make sense because of the wait lists... hmmm, think I'll sleep on that one ! J >> >> In the US it depends on what type of government funding where or not >> >> they [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > insurance or pay > up. Any Americans are welcome to come to Canada for treatment, but they 1) Have to pay and 2) Have to sign a form saying that if they felt it necessary to sue someone, it would have to be in Canada, not the US. Otherwise, unless it's emergency treatment, a Canadian physician can refuse to even see them. > So Canadians, unless it's something really, really rare, stay where you > are or go [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > J > "J" <studras@anon.inv> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > sue someone, it would have to be in Canada, not the US. Otherwise, unless > it's emergency treatment, a Canadian physician can refuse to even see them. Well, they don't. There's an institute nearby that brags about their American patients. This backs up surgeries for Canadian patients. J >> "J" <studras@anon.inv> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > This backs up surgeries for Canadian patients. > J We're very happy to see Americans too, but under the conditions above. > I'm pretty sure that the hospital I was treated in says in writing that no > one will ever be refused full treatment for inability to pay. Yes but the UK NHS is free for *anyone* in UK that wants to use it! But in the US medical care is *not* free for everyone in US now is it! I bet most posters on this news group, in US, have medical insurance. This is the problem UK people expect everything for free, they forget a free state funded service still has to be paid for by the taxpayers. So if people want a great medical care service theymust be willing to: pay high tax or pay their own medical bills or take out insurance. I myself have medical insurance as I want to be sure I get the care I need, when I nded it, it's as simple as that. Derek >> I'm pretty sure that the hospital I was treated in says in writing that >> no >> one will ever be refused full treatment for inability to pay. > > Yes but the UK NHS is free for *anyone* in UK that wants to use it! Actually that isn't true. I grew up in the UK and I am a UK citizen. However, brecause I am not resident in the UK, the NHS will not treat me unless I pay! Thank Maggie Thatcher for that rule. > But in the US medical care is *not* free for everyone in US now is it! > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Derek >> The latest figures from the cancer services of the NHS suggest that most >> patients see a consultant within 2 weeks, and those who need urgent [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'm pretty sure that the hospital I was treated in says in writing that no > one will ever be refused full treatment for inability to pay. Both the chemo clinic and radiotherapy clinic that served me have programs to serve the "needy". I don't know if it was based on the cost of operations, but the chemo clinic served far more obvious charity cases than the radiation clinic, but the radiotherapy clinic did provide service for them. > The latest figures from the cancer services of the NHS suggest that most > patients see a consultant within 2 weeks, and those who need urgent > treatment get it immediately. Some people do wait if the problem is not > urgent, but that's the same in every public funded system. Agreed. If fols want to go comparing the US and UK try US without medcial insurtance, comare that with UK NHS ! Anyway here's a quote from last Sunday's Observer. "The waiting lists for treatment and diagnosis of cancer have fallen significantly in recent years, Britain still lags some way behind other countries when it comes to delivering high-quality care. In a study of cancer patients across 38 countries, the UK had the third-lowest survival rate, with 48 per cent of those diagnosed still alive five years after treatment, compared with the top country, Iceland, at 63 per cent. Specialists believe that this is largely to do with the provision of medication. A study last year showed that £389m of NHS money went on cancer therapies in 2002/03, compared with £663m in France, with a similar population size." >> The latest figures from the cancer services of the NHS suggest that most >> patients see a consultant within 2 weeks, and those who need urgent [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > in > 2002/03, compared with £663m in France, with a similar population size." Specialists are wrong. It's nothing to do with "medication". It's to do with good provision of surgery and radiotherapy. Chemotherapy adds about 2.5% to the 63% five year survival rate for the commonest 22 cancers in adults. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.