Not so long ago, Britain began discussions with America regarding trade in a post-Brexit world. Liam Fox, who is spearheading Britain’s work in this regard, together with his boss, the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, has yet to deny that a part of the deal could be American corporations buying an interest in the NHS. It seems that in order to protect the ‘free at point of use’ principle, it is acceptable to sell bits of the NHS off.
Whilst this is one of the core principles of the National Health Service, it is a bit of a sacred cow. I cannot believe that Aneurin Bevan would be spinning in his grave if a small fee were to be levied.
It seems to me that it is preferable to make a small, one-off charge as a patient enters a consultation with a health centre, to ‘open the file’, as it were. Only for primary care, of course, and after that, it is free, as now.
This would have a number of benefits: Firstly, it would obviate the need for some of the thinking around attracting investment, as the NHS would generate some money of its own; secondly, it would deter the army of freeloaders who would rather sit in the surgery and save their heating bill at home; thirdly, the hordes of malingerers would think twice if they had to stump up for a fiver before seeing a doctor.
From the perspective of a Brit abroad, the NHS is certainly admired the world over, but needs a re-boot. The latest absurd ‘postcode lottery’ regarding IVF treatment for ladies attempting to become pregnant is a dreadful reflection of the state of play.
Of course, money plays an important part. It must. But why not allow clinical factors to play a part in deciding whether treatment is to be given rather than where a person happens to live?
As an example, I would suggest that lifestyle factors are taken into account rather more obviously and overtly. It seems to me ridiculous to allow certain treatments to proceed when a patient’s lifestyle is contributing to the difficulty in the first place.
It is another example of the ‘nanny state’. I understand that this is a complex area and exceptions can always be quoted, as a fit bodybuilder might have a high BMI and be denied surgery as a result. But this does not mean that the general rule should not apply.
I fail to appreciate the subtleties of the argument, when people who live in one part of Britain can receive treatment for an ailment, yet those who live in another cannot. To me this seems to be iniquitous.
Surely a better, fairer way to preserve funds is to look at the lifestyle choices of a patient, and how they affect the patient’s chances of benefiting from treatment.
The word ‘choice’ is important here. If a person chooses to smoke and is denied treatment as a consequence, the solution is simple: Stop smoking. It’s a lot easier than moving house!