Healthcare Consumerism

On the news today there was a story about the NHS (I live in the UK) and one woman was lamenting how people act like consumers rather than patients (the whole story was about people using Accident and Emergencies).

Why can't we be both? I might be a patient, but if my doctor isn't helping then why can't I demand a reasonable service? (Especially as I get to see how much they are paid).

This isn't a thread about the pros and cons of the NHS, but about whether we should be healthcare consumers, or simply patients.

I imagine in a country where you're handed a bill at the end of the consultation, it's easier to complain about not getting your money's worth or not getting the help you expect. I might not be paying my doctor at the end of the consultation, but I'm still paying for them.

Are we just arguing about semantics here?

Thoughts?

Great topic!

The battle is currently raging in the U.S over newly required mandatory health insurance (The Affordable Healthcare Act, or better known as 'ObamaCare')

If I'm forced to pay for any medical treatment, through insurance or not, I'd like to think that I have some say in the quality of the product I can receive. If I'm willing to pay more for it, shouldn't I be able to get better treatment?

Then again, if I'm lying in the street and the ambulance shows up, I'm pretty much at the mercy of the guy driving it at that point.

All I can hope for is that the people working in the healthcare industry have my best interest in mind rather than their pocketbooks.

This is probably a different topic so I may be highjacking my own thread, but I wonder sometimes how doctors see the hippocratic oath intersecting with health profit making.

If someone is in hospital and very ill and can't pay for their surgery, but not doing so could end their life, how can a doctor who could do that surgery walk away with the 'do no harm' intact. Is doing nothing where you could harm? Why should money make the difference... Perhaps we should make institutions take the hippocratic oath..

Anyway!... moving on...

But you're right, Senan, if we need an ambulance, we just have to hope they're going to do their best. I would hope though that as people in the medical profession they would have some care for humans in the first place.

that obamacare thing is a travesty... I don't know what the original bill was supposed to be, but the final implementation looks like its purpose is to make money for the insurance companies...


When it comes to the NHS, I find that many of its problems come from the government and the way the media reports it. My local hospital is Stafford hospital, a place that functioned perfectly well (and even had reputable wards) until:
-It was turned into a trust
-The media reported a non-issue like it was the start of WW3
-The authorities decided to launch probes and whatnot that completely bankrupted the trust.

Now we have no maternity, no 24hr A&E, wards are being sold off to other trusts (specifically north staffs), which is just as bankrupt. I can tell you that Julie Bailey woman is well and truly hated around here.

And to make things worse, women are getting NHS boobjobs for "psychological" reasons and that national insurance you're forced to pay for? Well not all of it goes to the NHS (they have to get that money for all that junk in Afghanistan from somewhere).

Given your thoughts on the NHS ren, what are your opinions on health consumerism?

If we have fewer maternity wards, fewer A&Es, shouldn't we start acting more like consumers?

Edan wrote: Given your thoughts on the NHS ren, what are your opinions on health consumerism?

If we have fewer maternity wards, fewer A&Es, shouldn't we start acting more like consumers?

Sorry for not making this more obvious. The way I see it is that people want another choice, a second opinion, etc when the first choice was not acceptable. If it were the best it can possibly be, there would be no consumerism in the NHS.

Also, fewer staff and facilities mean only one thing: Where we had no choice before, we now have nothing.

ren wrote: Sorry for not making this more obvious. The way I see it is that people want another choice, a second opinion, etc when the first choice was not acceptable. If it were the best it can possibly be, there would be no consumerism in the NHS.

Also, fewer staff and facilities mean only one thing: Where we had no choice before, we now have nothing.

I do agree with you there..

I wanted a second opinion on something from my doctor recently and I had to pretty much twist his arm to refer me to someone else. The annoying this is though, the junior doctor was all ready and willing to refer me, but the senior doctor wouldn't. I guess healthcare isn't a commodity, it's life, and I don't think anybody wants to be shortchanged there.

I broadly agree Ren, that whilst I completely support universal healthcare via taxation that invites politics, spin and ends up meaning more for the party and less for the service user.

I'd take a reportedly crap A&E over no A&E every time... clearly we should seek ways to enable and ensure the best service possible but when the budget is so stretched I feel critical services should get most, if not all, focus. If people can't get emergency help or see a GP quickly, the service isn't serving its core purpose.

I should add I love the NHS as an institution; I'd happily pay a little more to see better provision of front-line services, despite rarely having cause to use them. If you (or your neighbour, or the kid down the street) can't get sewn up after a car crash who cares what brand of watch you're wearing, you know?

tzb wrote: If people can't get emergency help or see a GP quickly, the service isn't serving its core purpose.

There was one hospital recently (I forget which) which had ambulances queuing outside for hours. It's kind of mindboggling to think that those people were having an emergency enough to be picked up by an ambulance, but not enough to get into the hospital quickly.

Consumerism always seems to be talked about with a kind of bitter tone, as if we shouldn't demand quality or service and if we do we're being selfish, but when the quality of health care could be the difference between living or dying, perhaps we should be pushing it more. Have treatment as a patient, but be treated like a consumer.

I believe a big part of the problem is in applying economic ideas to what should be a humanitarian issue. It is difficult to act like a consumer and effect the supply/demand of hospitals and quality care when often we have no power over when we will need that care. If the demand for care is always there, the hospitals can pretty much run however they want. If it's the difference between living or dying, I'll take a crappy hospital over no hospital. That allows for the existence of crappy hospitals. In fact, it encourages them because the cost to run them in a crappy way is much lower than doing it right. It is the patients who end up getting the shaft.

We absolutely should demand quality service, but that doesn't mean anyone will listen to our demands. The money talks.