Refinance | Remortgaging | Free Advertising | Loans | Loans
Failed To Show Appointments Cost Nhs 600 Million. [Archive] - Survivor Online

View Full Version : Failed To Show Appointments Cost Nhs 600 Million.


Northern angel
15-05-2006, 01:45 AM
Hello survivors,

I have long thought that the NHS appointment programme needed a serious revision. At present I gather that the cost to the health service caused by those who fail to attend appointments is standing at 600 million pounds. This figure is reported as being close to the deficit figure.

Whether this figure is close or not, in some quarters of medical opinion it is evident enough to suggest that some revision is due.

I suppose I should be very wary here, I may be accused of being an uncaring sociologist by some of my colleagues - who will no doubt tell me that any thought of charging would reduce the number of people seeking medical help at the point of need. They might justifiably tell me that certain social groups would suffer from increased medical ailments and would be deterred from seeking medical help. The idea of charging for appointments would be thus thrown out without any thoughts on why they should be introduced in the first place.

Another scheme which may be worth considering is that of more widely available medical insurances and again I am assured that this will be trashed as the bringer of a two tiered medical system for the haves and have nots.
They might also tell me they would not want to see an American system of the best care being offered to those who paid the most for there medical insurances and the worst care being offered under the the guise of charity.

In Britain it is not so much the charity idea, that has us buzzing it is the thought that mobile clinics have appeared to assist those suffering from minor alcohol related injuries. Inaugurated in certain cities to relieve the pressure from overstretched A & E departments. A sad factor of our times.

What a dilemma! This dilemma will be faced by whoever is in government, so maybe we should concern ourselves with it, for at some point in the past. We have had need of the NHS and at some point in the future we will have further need of it, as we age.

This issue, along with care for the elderly is something I have strong thoughts about. So strong, I recently wrote to the leaders of all three political parties to express my views - I am now waiting with interest, what responses I will get.

Meanwhile, I actually advocate charging for appointments for specialised clinics, dental appointments, eye tests, and out patients clinic appointments at hospitals. I advocate that all GP surgeries should abolish the appointment systems they have and work on a first come first served basis. That way there time will not be wasted. However, should a patient require to see someone specifically than a small fee should secure a timed appointment.

I am not shocked at myself for stating my support over the charging for appointments, but I find that on the occassions when I have not been able to get an appointment it could well be due to people who are inconsiderate to cancel appointments they knowingly can't attend. I have also noted the numbers on hospital clinic boards who did not attend appointments in the last month and my GP's electronic message system, will flash the numbers of non attendence for appointments.

I suppose in someways those who are currently abusing the system are a pain in the @rse.

Charging fees does not have to be unreasonable it could be done according to income. These fees should not be at actual cost for the time taken, they are merely a token to secure an appointment, and should you fail to turn up than you've lost your fee. All fees payable in advance.

What do you think?

Maureen
Northern angel.

gatubela
18-05-2006, 02:05 PM
Accounting dilemma:

600 million of inefficiencies, lets blame the no shows, not ourselves.

I would advise not to draw any conclusions without understanding the accounting methods. err, Enron anyone.

I see so many misrepresentations of statistics in my life that it is breathtaking.

eg Smoking costs the health system and society money?
1) smokers die younger and faster
2) health cost inflation exceeds CPI, and has done, everywhere, at all times

So, if people didn't smoke, they would require health care over a longer peiod of time some time later. Add the inflation factor, and its much much cheaper if they die younger and faster. Present value mathematics.

Then add the additional pension costs just to make things worse. Then add the tax revenues from smoking, and the equation becomes so unbalanced its not even funny how much money smoking saves society.

So why the representation that smokers cost the health care system money? To get to the answer, look to who says it, and for motive.

Oh, and the same people say the no-shows cost 600 million.

Northern angel
18-05-2006, 02:45 PM
Accounting dilemma:

600 million of inefficiencies, lets blame the no shows, not ourselves.

Not sure where you are coming from here. Do you feel it is all of us to blame?
I would advise not to draw any conclusions without understanding the accounting methods. err, Enron anyone.

I can't comment at all here, but please enlighten me on this score, enron has come up somewhere once before. Are they a government committee or agency that examines and is supposed to put things right, but the costs are greater? Not sure.

I see so many misrepresentations of statistics in my life that it is breathtaking.

Are you you saying we have been given to many diverse theories in relation to statistics or are you saying that the statistics have a greater percentage of error?

eg Smoking costs the health system and society money?
1) smokers die younger and faster
2) health cost inflation exceeds CPI, and has done, everywhere, at all times

So, if people didn't smoke, they would require health care over a longer peiod of time some time later. Add the inflation factor, and its much much cheaper if they die younger and faster. Present value mathematics.

So anti smoking campaigns and laws should all be cancelled to allow folks to kill themselves off earlier. We nanny to much is that it?

Are you aware that 20p or more out of every pound spent on cigarettes is directly taken towards NHS costs. 20% of corporation tax from all businesses is also for the NHS, and we the normal tax payer actually pay very little towards NHS costs?

Then add the additional pension costs just to make things worse. Then add the tax revenues from smoking, and the equation becomes so unbalanced its not even funny how much money smoking saves society.

So why the representation that smokers cost the health care system money? To get to the answer, look to who says it, and for motive.

Oh, and the same people say the no-shows cost 600 million.

So how come all these cancer stick smokers haven't saved us any money?

We are living longer naturally, so pensions for more people will obviously pose an issue. Irrespective of the funding for them.

Are you advocating a nationalised, "let's shove a granny off a bus campaign?" Please don't take this comment seriously.

Seriously speaking though, are you saying there's no truth in the 600 million pounds the no shows cost the NHS and that an exercise in creative acounting is to blame for it? Some hospitals are bankrupt that is not a lie, and as such they are adding to NHS further debts.

Maureen
Northern angel.

bridge
18-05-2006, 04:15 PM
Well what i think is, i always ring my clinic if i have to cancel an appointment just so some poor ****** can go instead but if the clinic cancel YOUR appointment they don't bother phoning to let YOU know.

Double standards, it really annoys me.:devil:

bridge
18-05-2006, 04:16 PM
Geez i only said bug-ger !!!!:surrender:

gatubela
19-05-2006, 02:26 PM
So how come all these cancer stick smokers haven't saved us any money?

They have.

We are living longer naturally, so pensions for more people will obviously pose an issue. Irrespective of the funding for them.

Obfuscation. Thats a separate issue. What I am saying is that MORE people live longer naturally if they dont smoe, so it is a saving if they dont.

Are you advocating a nationalised, "let's shove a granny off a bus campaign?" Please don't take this comment seriously.

No. I'm not advocating any action that reduces life expectancy. Just advocating an understanding of life expectancy based on current actions (Specifically smoking. Specifically it is shorter).

Seriously speaking though, are you saying there's no truth in the 600 million pounds the no shows cost the NHS and that an exercise in creative acounting is to blame for it? Some hospitals are bankrupt that is not a lie, and as such they are adding to NHS further debts.

I am saying it is an accounting statement, and we do not know the truth. So to start drawing conclusions is not smart.

Maureen
Northern angel.

Comments embedded above.

Bob
20-05-2006, 07:55 PM
When I was at the hospital yesterday for my scan there was a notice on the white board that said last month 32 women had failed to show up for their appointments.
I found this staggering as a scan is so important and also is a big deal for the woman as she gets to se her baby so why would you not show up!?
i've been looking forward to mine for so long, I had to change it though two weeks ago as Mr Bob couldn't make the original date, the only time they had left for that particular week was 9am friday which was the worst possible time for us but all they had as these appintments get allocated weeks in advance and everyone wants a later time.It's annoying to think that someone could have an afternoon appointment and then just not show.
Don't know what the answer is though MO, charging up front might put people off and these scans are so important but are optional.
people really do abuse the NHS and if we had to pay for everything I bet you wouldn't get so many people turnig up for free perscriptons for things they don't really need or going to see the doctor when they could just pop along to the chemist