Talk:National Health Service (England)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

NHS

I live in the United States and I have been reading about the NHS and how it works and I would like to know more from the people who actually have NHS. Of course in America Health Care is a big issue because to put it directly we do not have a health care system, if you have insurance you are one of the lucky ones, if you don't then you don't get treatment. i have talked to many people about their stories of how they are treated in America. Just last night a friend of mine dad went to the emergency room and he was refused treatment. So to me that says if you can't pay then you suffer. Could any one please tell me how the NHS works and does it work.Chandrahouseholder 18:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

When the NHS was founded, many thought that the cost of healthcare would go down as it becamr a huge preventative measure for people becoming ill. Medicine and consumer demands have expanded and the NHS faces lots of questions on what t should and shouldn't provide. Anecdotally,it seems many Britons complain about the state of the NHS from media reports but say that their own experience has been very positive which is kind of weird and suggests the media isn't exactally accurate. I persoanlly have private healthcare insurance for the comfort of the facilities available if I have hospital stay and to avoid any waiting for non-emrgency treatment but I understand that it is a lot cheaper than healthcare in the US as I will use both systems. E.g. If I have to attend A&E (ER) it will be the NHS paying. I remember being shocked in the US when a co-worker of mine cut his hand on the wire connecting the net to s basket-ball hoop we were playing round and he had to pay for stitches as he was uninsured. In the UK whether one is left or right wing, the NHS is mostly seen as an important part of the national fabric. I know from people in healthcare insurance that the US is also incredibly expensive (I am told this is because the bill covers everything from the smallest plaster or swab) Also there is the argument that it adds to the social divide in the US. I don't know what cooments you would make or contribute with valid evidence to the article? Dainamo 13:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Another anecdote; I saw a documentary on the Cook County Hospital in Chicago which showed an interview with a woman in A+E with a blood-soaked towel round her hand, having cut it on a breadknife. The local fee-paying hospital had declined to treat her, but did phone a taxi to take her to CCH, for which they had billed her 50 dollars. Nuff Sedd? Swanny18 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"one of the lucky ones" with insurance? For all the failings of the US system, its absurd to suggest only a few "lucky" people have health insurance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.61.61 (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me summarise how it works. Everyone is registered with a GP (general practitioner), a qualified doctor paid for by the NHS whose job it is to get you the health care you need. He or she can prescribe drugs and will follow your treatment to recovery. You do not pay for these visits. If you need a drug you take the prescription to a local pharmacy. They will issue with the drug you need and you will pay a flat fee for that drug. The pharmacist bills the NHS for the prescriptions less the flat fees it has received from you. If you need specialist care at a hospital or clinic the GP will discuss with you the hospitals you can go to. You choose the hospital together, and he writes to the specialist at that hospital where again the services are not billed. If you are treated in hospital, your drugs and all the treatments you receive there are free of charge. Therefore the GP is the first gatekeeper to these specialized services. This prevents people making frivolous appointments and people not entitled to NHS treatments from getting free treatment. The hospital also has gatekeeper responsibilities. But the net effect is, that if you need a treatment that has been proven to be effective then you will get treated for free. All treatments given at the hospital are reported back to the GP, so there is a single record of your medical history. The taxpayer picks up the cost of the NHS. I hope that answers your question. I may update the article as I think it actually summarises how the NHS works from the patient view quite well, especially to people not familiar with the system.--Tom 13:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I have created a new article Health care in the United Kingdom which describes the overal system in the UK as it is seen by a user of the system. Its a new article and at the moment focusses mainly on the NHS but it does try to show how the private system fits in and how choice is exercised. --Tom 16:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Most people in the UK would regard the US system with horror, and personally reckon the system is pretty good, critical press reports notwithstanding. In my own case, I've been a taxpayer for about 30 years, and my use of the NHS has been limited to use of the GP for minor illnesses, and the dental and opthamological services (reminds me, I'm due to pay £43.60 next Tuesday for a couple of fillings...); the only time I've needed to call on the NHS for a medical emergency, about 4 years ago when I slipped on the stairs at home, a paramedic arrived within about 5 minutes of my phone call who confirmed that yes, my leg really was broken, and started treatment until the ambulance arrived about another 5 minutes later. Five hours later I was in theatre having a substantial amount of metalwork put in my leg, followed by a week's stay in hospital, six weeks with my leg in plaster, followed by another 4 months or so of hospital physiotherapy sessions once or twice a week, all at no cost to myself.
My mother, on the other hand, as a farmers' wife was never in paid employment in her life so didn't pay National Insurance, yet made substantial use of the NHS - she was on pills for a kidney condition from before my earliest memory, she had me by caesarian section (not a common thing in late 1950s UK), had two replacement hip joints in the late 1970s, and for the last nearly five years of her life was on about six different drugs each day and had visits from the nurse at least once a week. We weren't too impressed when she was sent home undiagnosed two days after being taken to hospital by ambulance in the middle of the night, but two months later it happened again and she was diagnosed with two leaking heart valves; she decided against surgery at her age (81), not because of the 3% risk of dying on the table but because of the higher risk of a stroke, which is what dissuaded her, so she decided to be treated by drugs instead, with the understanding that there'd come a day when they no longer worked. Four years later (we get the impression that the doctors were rather surprised she survived so long) she went into the local community hospital (a small hospital, with no operating facilities, it's somewhere to go to recover from operations and be nearer home and family) for a week or two's rest late last March, but took a turn for the worse just before she was due to go home; we were told in the middle of April that there was nothing more that could medically be done for her, but she stayed there until early June, then was transferred to a nursing home for the last five weeks of her life - all of this was paid for by the NHS. All-in-all, I'd reckon my family has got good value from the NHS for the taxes we've paid. -- Arwel (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


If the originator of this post really was from the United States then he/she would know that it is ILLEGAL for any emergency room to deny treatment based on ability to pay. Years ago when I did not have insurance I visited the ER several times and was always seen. I simply received a bill afterwords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrnadler1 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Foundation Trust Status

Under Section 3.1 Organisation: "NHS hospital trusts and NHS foundation trusts administer hospitals, treatment centres and specialist care in around 1,600 NHS hospitals (some trusts run between 2 and 8 different hospital sites)" which is incorrect. NHS Acute Trusts and NHS Hospitals Trusts administer hospitals. Any provider trust (Acute, Hospital, Mental & Social Healthcare, Partnership) can be a Foundation Trust. Foundation status is granted based on financial stability, patient involvement, etc. This is monitored by the organisation Monitor. For example: 2gether NHS Foundation Trust is a Mental & Social Healthcare Trust. 62.30.156.9 (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Coalition Government proposals...

As followers of the NHS will be aware, the coalition has a number of proposals for the NHS; the one that springs to mind is passing budgets to the hands of GPs. Does anyone take a view on how the article should reflect this? Should we include something on them now or should we wait until there's legislation? Personally I'm for inclusion earlier rather than later but I'll confess to being of a mind to educate the public on current issues whereas others might feel that an encyclopedia should take a slower, measured approach. Thoughts? (Note to self: Private Eye #1267 p6) --bodnotbod (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest WP:BOLD applies. This kind of encylopaedia can be up-to-the minute correct because it is published hundreds of thousands of times every day - not once every five years! Go for it!--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal - November 2008

I propose to merge (move) the text from the Organisation section of this page into NHS trust, providing a link instead. Thoughts/opinions? Millstream3 (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The section is quite small. Personally I'd leave it be. As there has been no discussion about this I will delete the merge proposal.--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
If it is merged with the NHS England article then a new article will have to be created for the NHS trusts in Wales.--MBRZ48 (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion topic purge?

The discussion page is getting out of control were at 56 separate discussions including this one.

Many of these are from years ago shouldn't a lot of these be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.154.157 (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No. We never "remove" Talk page discussions. We archive them. I can't be bothered doing it for this Talk page, but I'm sure some kind soul will oblige. Please see WP:BOLD. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Information move

I propose that most of this information be moved to the main NHS page as most of it is relevant. The main NHS article should be the overall one rather than a branch (the major branch I know). Mspence835 (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction is quite verbose, repeats information and contains (biased?) bits about 'complaints' from Doctors RE: cuts to frontline services and vague information on the current proposed reorganisation of the NHS. I don't doubt that this is important information, but does it belong in the introduction to the page on the NHS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.119.240 (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The introduction is far too long, and a bit weird in places. I am downgrading this article to C-class, as useless intros are an automatic B fail. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The Times: "Expansion of private care in NHS hospitals"

There is an "exclusive" in today's Times, including:

  • NHS hospitals will be free to earn up to half their income from private work in a move that is reigniting coalition splits over health reforms. Opponents have given warning that the change, in which foundation hospitals will have their private patient income cap raised dramatically, could lead to a two-tier health system... Senior Liberal Democrats claimed that the reform was a further sign of the Conservatives blurring the distinction between public and private provision. Ministers dismissed the comments as scaremongering, saying that the move did not amount to privatisation and that patients would still have the same legal rights and hospitals the same legal duty to serve them.

The Times, Chris Smyth, Anushka Asthana, 27 December 2011 --Mais oui! (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

question edit

Can the doctor recommend a surgery but an overseer deny the doctor's request? What is the term called? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.198.33 (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

A surgery is a doctor's place of business. A patient chooses which surgery to attend and which doctor within that surgery he wishes to use. A doctor can recommend an operation (a surgical operation) and an overseer could overrule his recommendation. However this rarely happens. I don't think that there is a special term for "denial of a recommendation for an operation". -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

But is the overseer actually called an "overseer" or is there a more pc term for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.198.33 (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Support for Requested move

Per NHS Scotland and NHS Wales, should this page be moved to NHS England per the clear naming convention already established by the other two? Opinions please. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
And NHS Northern Ireland ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think "National Health Service" is the official name in England, see eg National Health Service Act 2006. "NHS England" is not used on the NHS websites. So I think we should stick to the current name. Rwendland (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Where? "National Health Service" isn't anywhere on their homepage, and the list of related sites at the bottom lists the others as "NHS Scotland", "NHS Northern Ireland" and "NHS Wales". We all know what it stands for, but all 4 use NHS as their web address, logo, and to refer to themselves. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 13:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd point to two places:

  • the first sentence of the DoH website Health Care section: "The National Health Service in England provides free healthcare for all ..."[1]
  • the first sentence of the new health bill: "... to make other provision about the National Health Service in England"[2]

Do you have a cite for any substantial use of "NHS England" anywhere? Rwendland (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The health bill was always going to use the full name rather than an abbreviation, that's common sense. The NHS Ireland website uses "NHS England" though and Scotland and Welsh NHS both use England and NHS, rather than National Health Service. WP:Commonname? Again, we all know what it stands for but there is no way it is the more common title in any sense, as proved here. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
If you do a google search '"NHS England" site:nhs.uk' you come up with very little use of "NHS England", and none of it on a major page, so I don't think it is a WP:Commonname. For example the "English" NHS web page[3] has the heading "The NHS in England". Rwendland (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Can we please realise that it is not for Wikipedia to rename British institutions? I see this on many government-related articles. Basically, it boils down to two choices - use the common name or the official name. "NHS England" is neither, its completely made-up. The English organisation is officially called "The National Health Service", which happily is also its common name. I support the existing format with England in brackets, as this makes clear that the England part is not an official part of the name. NHS Scotland and NHS Wales are different, because that is what those organisations are actually called. It is not for Wikipedia editors to go around renaming institutions just to impose an arbitary "consistency" which simply does not exist in the real world. Thom2002 (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
It is actually. These are the names of Wikipedia articles, not the names of the real world entities that are the topics of the articles. And it is very much up to Wikipedia editors to choose the best name for the article. In many cases this will be the same name as the common name of the entity described in the article; in other cases it will not. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the difference between an article name and an institution name, but I see no reason at all for Wikipedia editors to get all 'inventive'. Either the common name or the actual name of the institution which the article describes will do fine. Thom2002 (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Need a "Controversies" section?

Major changes effective April 2013? "Farewell to the NHS, 1948-2013: a dear and trusted friend finally murdered by Tory ideologues" -- http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/farewell-to-the-nhs-19482013-a-dear-and-trusted-friend-finally-murdered-by-tory-ideologues-8555503.html Jo3sampl (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Infographic?

Hi, I’m Andrew Clark and I work at the Office for National Statistics in the UK.

We publish lots of info graphics and I wonder if this one on the Health gap in England and Wales (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Health_gap_in_England_and_Wales,_2011_Census.png) would be of interest for National Health Service

FYI, the full gallery is here <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Content_created_by_the_Office_for_National_Statistics>

All the best

Andrew Clark (smanders1982) 10 Dec 2013

Smanders1982 (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice anything missing?

The National Health Service (NHS) is the publicly funded healthcare system for England. It is the largest and the oldest single-payer healthcare system in the world. Primarily funded through the general taxation system, the system provides healthcare to every legal resident in the United Kingdom, with most services free at the point of use. Some services, such as emergency treatment and treatment of infectious diseases are free for everyone, including visitors.[1]

Would anybody reading this guess that the NHS is run by the British government? Is that straightforward reality taboo, and if it is when did it become so? The article makes it sound like the NHS is a totally independent institution that just happens to receive state funding.

184.57.174.32 (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Relevant page history

Some relevant old page history can be found at Talk:National Health Service (England)/Old history. Graham87 11:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Geography

I've imported quite a lot of material from National Health Service which relates specifically to England - and moved a bit which doesn't in the other direction. We need to ensure that the content is in the right place.Rathfelder (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Investment and efficiency section

The "investment and efficiency" section seems to be a collection of every article that mentions funding cuts in the NHS, rather than a broad overview of the topic. I have added an UNDUE tag to the section. I think this section should be trimmed down significantly. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's become unreadable. Rathfelder (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits, the "Financial Outlook" section seems to be a similarly poorly written and rambling section. I have removed both sections - better to start again than try and rewrite that mess. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
This section seems to have been resurrected as the "Capacity" section with similar POV issues. I will remove the section for similar reasons to above. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Health Service (England). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Health_Service_(England)/Archive_2&oldid=1210732316"