Odd combination but I haven't done a post for a while, so I thought I would do a couple of topics together.
Earlier in the year it was reported that thousands of pounds were lost to the NHS due to prescriptions every year i.e. in Wales where prescriptions are free (as in Scotland and Northern Ireland) it was reported that "people in Wales received an average of 22 items on prescription last year, costing the NHS £594m" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-14738797).
But the news is that the cost of the prescriptions have risen in England (while the other UK nations stay free). I'm not going to list figures because that would be boring and that's not what matters here really, it's still a fairly low price to pay; but yes, the price has has gone up and that may be an issue for some people i.e. those who have long term conditions who need constant prescriptions. Maybe there should be funding schemes set up to help these people, but then again there is so much funding being lost these days it would be hard to see that happen.
The question is, why can't England have free prescriptions like the rest of the United Kingdom? Well; "The government says abolishing prescription charges in England would leave the NHS £450m short each year" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17576096), which is a fair argument but they aren't dealing with the losses they are making in Wales (as illustrated earlier). There were a number of opinions expressed in the comments on the BBC website. Some were for the rises but others were unhappy with the rises and thought that it was 'unfair' (a very common term used in the report). What I suggest is that we be thankful for the NHS and what they do for us for free and we just accept these extra payments. If you are in a critical condition and on the brink of death they will perform life saving surgery without asking any questions, how about that for healthcare. I've been to other countries and seen their standards of healthcare where they can barely put up all the people in a hospital who need treatment. What are people suggesting? That we go private? Then things will be ten times more expensive because healthcare will no longer be good practice, it will be a business, charging people to live because they know that people want one thing; and they will pay anything to keep their lives. Honestly, what do people think is the alternative to what services we have?!
In terms of the hip surgery story, it is much like the PIP breast implant story; "surgeons have been warned to stop using a particular type of metal-on-metal hip implant because it has an 'unacceptably' high failure rate" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17590832). The BBC reported that over a 4 year period "10.7%" had to be replaced which is almost 29 out of the "270" who have been given the "Mitch TRC and Accolade" hip replacements. There is a lot of investment and research put into things like hip replacements and other structures that are put into the body. This is because it has to be accepted by the body and also try to act as if it is natural/meant to be there; for example making sure the bones can move with it in place or making sure the metal doesn't rust in the body.
One way of performing hip replacement surgery is to do 'anterior approach' which is said to be better because "rehabilitation is simplified and accelerated, dislocation risk is reduced, leg length is more accurately controlled, and the incision is small" (http://www.hipandpelvis.com/patient_education/totalhip/intro.html). It was interesting to find that (written in a report in 2007) it wasn't the preferable choice of hip surgery in the USA because apparently "there are several reasons: lack of familiarity, traditional teaching, and lack of the necessary instrumentation and equipment" (as above). However the techniques may have improved since the report was written.
Although this is a very long surgical video (almost 2 hours) detailing the whole procedure, if you flick through it you can see the basic outline of how the anterior approach surgery is carried out with a small incision.
To finish, back to the H5N1 story which is raging on in America at the moment; news is out that a "US panel has approved the publication of two controversial H5N1 bird flu studies, after they were revised" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17569494). There was controversy over whether to release the publications in case bioterrorists got hold of them. But the "panel said the publications no longer revealed details that could lead to abuse by terrorists" (link as above).
Earlier in the year it was reported that thousands of pounds were lost to the NHS due to prescriptions every year i.e. in Wales where prescriptions are free (as in Scotland and Northern Ireland) it was reported that "people in Wales received an average of 22 items on prescription last year, costing the NHS £594m" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-14738797).
But the news is that the cost of the prescriptions have risen in England (while the other UK nations stay free). I'm not going to list figures because that would be boring and that's not what matters here really, it's still a fairly low price to pay; but yes, the price has has gone up and that may be an issue for some people i.e. those who have long term conditions who need constant prescriptions. Maybe there should be funding schemes set up to help these people, but then again there is so much funding being lost these days it would be hard to see that happen.
The question is, why can't England have free prescriptions like the rest of the United Kingdom? Well; "The government says abolishing prescription charges in England would leave the NHS £450m short each year" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17576096), which is a fair argument but they aren't dealing with the losses they are making in Wales (as illustrated earlier). There were a number of opinions expressed in the comments on the BBC website. Some were for the rises but others were unhappy with the rises and thought that it was 'unfair' (a very common term used in the report). What I suggest is that we be thankful for the NHS and what they do for us for free and we just accept these extra payments. If you are in a critical condition and on the brink of death they will perform life saving surgery without asking any questions, how about that for healthcare. I've been to other countries and seen their standards of healthcare where they can barely put up all the people in a hospital who need treatment. What are people suggesting? That we go private? Then things will be ten times more expensive because healthcare will no longer be good practice, it will be a business, charging people to live because they know that people want one thing; and they will pay anything to keep their lives. Honestly, what do people think is the alternative to what services we have?!
In terms of the hip surgery story, it is much like the PIP breast implant story; "surgeons have been warned to stop using a particular type of metal-on-metal hip implant because it has an 'unacceptably' high failure rate" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17590832). The BBC reported that over a 4 year period "10.7%" had to be replaced which is almost 29 out of the "270" who have been given the "Mitch TRC and Accolade" hip replacements. There is a lot of investment and research put into things like hip replacements and other structures that are put into the body. This is because it has to be accepted by the body and also try to act as if it is natural/meant to be there; for example making sure the bones can move with it in place or making sure the metal doesn't rust in the body.
One way of performing hip replacement surgery is to do 'anterior approach' which is said to be better because "rehabilitation is simplified and accelerated, dislocation risk is reduced, leg length is more accurately controlled, and the incision is small" (http://www.hipandpelvis.com/patient_education/totalhip/intro.html). It was interesting to find that (written in a report in 2007) it wasn't the preferable choice of hip surgery in the USA because apparently "there are several reasons: lack of familiarity, traditional teaching, and lack of the necessary instrumentation and equipment" (as above). However the techniques may have improved since the report was written.
Although this is a very long surgical video (almost 2 hours) detailing the whole procedure, if you flick through it you can see the basic outline of how the anterior approach surgery is carried out with a small incision.
To finish, back to the H5N1 story which is raging on in America at the moment; news is out that a "US panel has approved the publication of two controversial H5N1 bird flu studies, after they were revised" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17569494). There was controversy over whether to release the publications in case bioterrorists got hold of them. But the "panel said the publications no longer revealed details that could lead to abuse by terrorists" (link as above).
No comments:
Post a Comment