Two NZ public hospitals propose preferential treatment...

Two NZ public hospitals propose preferential treatment - creating two classes of patients which would undermine public health...



The proposal has alarmed hospital doctors and nurses who fear that it would create 'two classes' of patients in the public system. Two district health boards propose to offer public hospital patients the option of paying for treatment that is not funded by the public health system.

The proposal has alarmed hospital doctors and nurses who fear that it would create "two classes" of patients in the public system.

But Health Minister Tony Ryall said the idea merited investigation and could be applied nationally. It is obvious that Ryall supports the proposal.

The Otago and Southland DHBs have invited public comment by next Tuesday on their plans to offer additional treatments at a cost to patients.

The boards' consultation paper, available on the Otago board's website, says the number of patients who might pay for additional treatments is expected to be small. And it asserts that other patients will not be affected.

"Patients who receive additional unfunded treatments will not be able to queue-jump a waiting list by paying for a higher priority," it says.

The proposal has echoes of the previous National Government's short-lived scheme for hospital part-charges in the early 1990s under Health Minister Simon Upton.

Mr Ryall was anxious to distance the proposal from Mr Upton's scheme. "The National Government has always said we are not introducing part-charges in our public hospitals," he said.

The two boards believe their scheme will benefit the likes of cancer patients who have not responded to state-funded treatments and might purchase newer, unfunded medicines.

Before Herceptin was state-funded for women with HER 2-positive early-stage breast cancer, some sufferers paid more than $100,000 at private clinics for a standard 12-month course.

Mr Ryall said the idea, which would need his final approval, merited investigation as long as it would help patients - without leading to queue-jumping or imposing extra costs on public hospitals. If successful, it could be applied nationally.

Unions representing nurses and senior doctors are unhappy about the idea. "The principle of having a dual system of publicly and privately funded care being provided in the public sector is fraught and runs the risk of public patients being disadvantaged," said the Nurses Organisation.

"It will also create dilemmas for professionals who are asked to offer different treatment options, depending on ability to pay."

Organising services manager Cee Payne said workloads were already high. No spare capacity existed for delivering additional services. If spare capacity did exist, it should be used to improve services.

The Association of Salaried Medical Specialists' president, Dr Jeff Brown, said National's experiment with hospital part-charges had left "an ugly taste" and he was "extremely wary" of the proposal.

"We have major problems with capacity in public hospitals at the moment. If there's something that's available and not funded publicly ... how could it be established in the public system without capacity issues, staffing issues and cost issues."

Labour's health spokeswoman, Ruth Dyson, dismissed the assertion the proposal would not lead to preferential treatment. "There are only so many doctors and nurses to go around and they should be available to help all people who walk through the public hospital doors on an equal basis rather than being tied up with paying patients first.

Paying patients should be transfered to private hospitals; they should not be treated in public hospitals. The scheme could lead to preferential treatment in our public hospitals where private patients would expect and possibly demand preferential treatment ahead of non-paying or public patients.Public hospitals are for public non-paying patients through taxation. It appears to be a backdoor method to create a system of preferential treatment in public hospitals. It should be strongly opposed.

Acknowledgements: MSN News

Is this a shocking indictment of the American health system...

IS THIS A SHOCKING INDICTMENT OF THE AMERICAN HEALTH SYSTEM, AND PERHAPS OF AMERICAN SOCIETY AS WELL - MEDICAL HEALTH TOURISM A NEW INDUSTRY...


Is this a shocking indictment of the American health system, and perhaps of American society as well? Please read on:

A recent "20-20" television program in New Zealand exposed the problems existing in the American health system. The story starts in Idaho Falls, USA. An American woman named 'Heather' required a full hip replacement. The basic cost in America was US$60,000 exclusive of all other costs involved.

But like 45 million other families, 'Heather'and her family do not have, and cannot afford health insurance. Neither does she qualify for any form of government assistance, reserved for the very poor or those with identifiable needs. Sadly for her president Obama's proposed health scheme, if passed into law, will be too late for 'Heather'. She needs a full hip replacement now, or she will spend the rest of her life in a wheel-chair!

After some extensive online research, 'Heather' discovered she could get her hip-replacement offshore, not in Mexico for example, but in an English- speaking First World country down in the Pacific - New Zealand.

The total cost for 'Heather', inclusive of all associated medical costs, hotel bills and food for both her and a companion(her mother)would be US$23,000 all up!

'Heather' was able to find a foundation within the US who were prepared to pay half of her costs, and family and friends raised the other half.Then it was off to Auckland, New Zealand.

After flying to NZ and settling her mother into her hotel room, 'Heather' went to meet the surgeon responsible for her operation. She was interviewed and met the medical staff at the private hospital where the full hip operation was to be performed.

A new hip is guaranteed for about ten years, though some last indefinately.

She had her operation at a top private hospital in Auckland. They had the latest navigation system available to line-up her new hip.

Her operation was a complete success, and recovery took four weeks, during which time she was given an exercise regime, including walking. She was then passed fit enough to return home to the US for her rehabilition - with its market driven health system, which President Barack Obama is trying to overhaul. His opposition is coming from self-interest groups in the American health system, including the vast health insurance lobby.

So far there has really only been a trickle of clients such as 'Heather' seeking treatment outside the US. This has become known as "medical tourism".

How will this affect medical treatment for local Kiwis in the future? If this trickle becomes the flood that is anticipated it could well affect costs here in New Zealand. NZ could handle 2000-5000 clients a year, but if a tsunami of 20,000 clients hit NZ annually there could well be ramifications for the NZ health system - availabilty for operations could be compromised and costs could soar, affecting the state system as well.

There is no doubt that the estimated 15 million or so Americans will be going somewhere offshore from America in future years, and NZ will become a desirable destination and will get its share of an industry that could be equivalent to its present multimillion dollar wine industry. But what sort of "strain" could be put on the NZ health system? Could there be just a little temptation to sqeeze in some foreign clients into the NZ public health system too?
Posted by Kiwi Riverman's Blogesphere at 5:40 PM 0 comments My other blogs

The Kiwi Riverman Post