Pulaski

This is an example of what happens when the government determines who gets treated and who doesn't.

I pity the girl's parents who remortgaged their home and cashed in pensioners savings to pay for the surgery, but in a situation that is tragic from most perspectives, except for the surgery which appears to have been successful, it is unfortunate that the girl had to travel to the US for surgery as her bones were hardening due to age and therefore there was no time to wait to see if the NHS might provide the surgery later.

The flip side of the argument is whether it is appropriate for the cash-strapped NHS to provide such extraordinarily expensive surgery, especially for a condition that isn't directly life threatening?

bartholemues

Not sure what your point is? With government provided healthcare, you still have the option to go private as demonstrated by your article. If the government don't provide healthcare you have to pay regardless so how is that any better?

robin1234

"Government controlled healthcare." What does that even mean? What are the alternatives - that for profit companies control healthcare? It's abundantly clear that the NHS works really well. The fact that it is incredibly stressed by being chronically underfunded, and yet it still works, demonstrates its success.

Healthcare as a percent of gdp in 2014, from the World Bank
UK 9.1%
US 17.1%

scrubbedexpat099

Does make me wonder if every country can be expected to have available every possible type of medical treatment known to man available for its residents. I presume there are some things not available in the US and how do you differ having treatment available at a cost and being able to fund it. This couple could raise the money, vast majority of the world population can not.

Pulaski

The patient had to leave the UK for treatment because (presumably) "going private" in the UK wasn't possible for political reasons, not because the medical expertise and technology wasn't available.

It's apparently like that in Canada - you can "go private" .... but only by visiting the US for treatment.

Bob

The same could be said about the US though.

Pulaski

The crux of my reason for posting #1 is when the technology exists, and the training and equipment exists, but the health care management and/or politicians not only prevent the public pursue paying for the treatment but also prevent the treatment being paid for privately.

Pulaski

Well people sometimes leave the US for cheaper treatment overseas, it's true, but unless you're talking about experimental or "non traditional" treatments, I can't think of people leaving the US because there was no mechanism for paying for treatment which would otherwise be available.

robin1234

Yes, I see that the procedure was discontinued in the UK. But, unlike in Canada, it would be possible for a hospital in the UK to offer the procedure privately, if it fitted in with their business plan, surely?

You say it wasn't possible in the UK for political reasons. Surely the reasons were to do with budget priorities, not politics.

Pulaski

Maybe, but that's not how I read the article.

robin1234

No, I don't think that is the case. There are private hospitals in the UK, as well as private care being available in NHS facilities.

robin1234

This is all it says. No suggestion of 'politics.'

Ella's family made the decision to travel for the surgery after St George's hospitals trust, in south London, put the procedures on hold.
The NHS trust, which had previously performed vertebral body tethering (VBT), said health advisory group NICE was looking into it more and apologised for any distress.

mrken30

This appears to be a fairly new, possible experimental technique.

https://posna.org/Blogs/The-Resident...th-Randal-Betz

They also could have seen this guy.

http://www.wimbledonclinics.co.uk/co...mr-tim-bishop/ or http://www.wimbledonclinics.co.uk/co...jason-bernard/

Both who were pioneers of that technique apparently, according to this article

http://www.insullspine.com/

Did the consultant recommend to put the surgery on hold? Did the parents disagree with the decision and decide to have it done anyway by going to the US?

There is probably more to this story than is being told.

bartholemues

Exactly. Just because there are no private options available locally that doesn't suggest politics are involved. I know in New Zealand where I grew up it wasn't unusual for people to have to travel abroad for rare conditions because procedures weren't available locally. Similar situations also result from market controlled healthcare so the original point could be used as a reason for government provided healthcare also. A good system will offer high levels both.

The reality of primarily market controlled healthcare has helped cause an opiate epidemic in the US and allowed corporations to fleece users for the patented products which they need to live.

thinbrit

Were you being sarcastic here?