Gross mental health negligence in Britain
Cumulative failure of staff at a London hospital led to the murder of a former banker by a man whose schizophrenic condition made him dangerous, a report into the killing found yesterday. The independent inquiry recorded a number of errors in the treatment of John Barrett, 42, who was allowed to walk out of a secure unit despite a history of violence and mental illness. Barrett repeatedly stabbed Denis Finnegan, 50, a retired banker, as he cycled through Richmond Park on September 2, 2004. Two days earlier, Barrett had been admitted to the Springfield Mental Health Hospital in Tooting after hearing voices in his head, and was in a medium- security unit.
The inquiry named Gillian Mezey as the psychiatrist who made the "seriously flawed" decision to grant permission by phone for Barrett to have an hour's unescorted leave in the hospital grounds, even though she had not assessed his condition.
Robert Robinson, the lawyer who chaired the inquiry, was even more critical of management at the hospital and the South West London and St George's Trust, which runs it. He said that clinical decisions were often unsupported by evidence and were rarely challenged by colleagues. In a direct attack on the judgment of Dr Mezey and other clinicians, he said that staff had been too reluctant to intervene against Barrett's wishes, going along with what he wanted in the hope of maintaining his co-operation. That was con- trary to all legal and clinical guidelines, but management at the trust had failed to take action. "The trust knew there were problems and didn't do anything about them," he said.
Many senior managers have been replaced. In conclusion, the 422-page report casts doubt on whether the new senior staff at the trust were up to the job and recommended that a new team of experts be sent in to force through change. "We doubt whether there is the managerial capacity within forensic (psychiatric) services or the wider trust to achieve the necessary changes," it said. It called for the secure unit at Springfield hospital, in which Barrett was treated, to be closed. The trust has rejected this advice.
Dr Mezey, who is also a police adviser on domestic violence and murder, is still employed by the hospital but no longer deals directly with patients. Nigel Fisher, chief executive of the trust at the time of the murder, has been promoted to a job at the Department of Health, where he advises hospitals on how to win foundation status.
Peter Houghton, the trust's new chief executive, said now that the inquiry had been published he would explore whether disciplinary action would be taken. Along with the criticism of the health trust, the inquiry condemned the independent Mental Health Review Tribunal that allowed Barrett to leave secure care at Springfield hospital in 2003, only a year after he had stabbed three people at random at an outpatient clinic in St George's Hospital. One man almost died in the attack.
The tribunal spent only 45 minutes considering the case, examining reports from Springfield hospital that recommended conditional discharge. At the time of the 2002 stabbing he was considered so dangerous that he was placed under the direct care of the Home Office. Only the Home Office raised objections to his release, making it clear that it did not want him back in the community. Barrett failed to adhere to the conditions laid down for his release, including taking his antipsychotic drugs and staying off recreational drugs. The conditions were not monitored or enforced, and he began to behave erratically and complained of hearing whispering voices. That led to his returning to Springfield hospital on August 31, 2004. He was furious when he was placed in a secure ward, believing that he should have been placed on an open ward. In the hope of calming him down and retaining his co-operation for treatment, Dr Mezey granted him "ground leave" from which he absconded and murdered Mr Finnegan, a stranger.
Michael Howlett, director of the Zito Trust, a mental health charity set up in 1994 after the murder of Jonathan Zito by a man suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, said that it was the most damning report he had seen in the past decade. "It beggars belief that John Barrett, who was a restricted patient under the responsibility of the Home Office for a very serious offence of violence in which he very nearly killed a man in 2002, should have been granted a conditional discharge by a mental health review tribunal as early as 2003," he said.
Source
Australia: A billion dollars worth of ambulance funding evaporates
Britain is not alone in spending more to get less
The number of emergency service vehicles on Queensland streets has declined over the past three years while community taxes have raised almost $1 billion in revenue for the State Government. Figures from recent Emergency Services annual reports state the number of operational vehicles - including ambulances, fire units and emergency helicopters - had fallen by about 50 each year since the introduction of the community ambulance levy. Last financial year $238 million was raised from fire levies and about $110 million from ambulance taxes.
Across Queensland, 2145 vehicles were stationed last year, a drop of 95 since 2004-05, but these figures were disputed yesterday. Emergency Services Minister Pat Purcell, who admitted on radio that he did not know how many ambulances were in the fleet, said the reporting conditions had changed and there was an increase of 18 ambulances from the previous year. "Vehicles are only one part of the picture," he said.
Opposition emergency services spokesman Ted Malone questioned how the additional funds were spent and called for a review. "The focus has been taken off running a lean, mean department of service delivery right at the cutting edge all the time," he said.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Saturday, November 18, 2006
U.K.: Police-check fiasco stops 12,000 nurses working
Thousands of nurses and public sector staff have been left unable to work for months because of a backlog of police checks. Up to 50,000 workers, including 12,000 nurses, were caught in delays as new computer equipment meant criminal records checks were stockpiled. A row has broken out between the Metropolitan Police and the Criminal Records Bureau over who is to blame for the fiasco.
The delay occurred when the bureau installed a new computer system which was not compatible with the Met's software. It meant all new applications were stacked up until the police fitted their own new system. During that time nurses and other staff could not legally work. Agency nurse Sally Powell, from Islington, threatened to sue the police after delays meant she was unable to work for five months. A letter to her from the Met, passed to Nursing Times, said: "The problem arose because the Criminal Records Bureau went live with a computer system linking to a national database in February 2006. "The Metropolitan Police Service told the Criminal Records Bureau that its computer system would not be ready to link into this in time and that they should not send referrals on that system until the Metropolitan Police Service was live. "However the bureau went ahead anyway and the Met had no choice but to stockpile the CRB referrals."
Ms Powell, 53, filed her application in April but did not get clearance to work until September. Ms Powell, a senior nurse who has been in the NHS since 1969, said: "99.99 per cent of the time you never even need these checks but every time you change organisation you have to get it done. "I was told the check would take between four and six weeks but it took five months. I had to take work doing odd jobs. I had to freeze my mortgage because I had no money coming in. "Some nurses have had to wait for eight months and that has impoverished them. It is an infringement of my civil rights to employment as a qualified nurse. I have written to the Home Secretary." Ms Powell was told by the Met that 50,000 people had been caught up in the delay and 12,000 of those were nurses.
A spokesman for the Met said: "The technical problems which are referred to in the letter sent to Ms Powell were addressed when the MPS system went live on 2 May 2006. "There are a number of outstanding checks - however the backlog referred to has been reduced considerably. Since the new system went live the Metropolitan Police have been processing 50,000 checks a month." A spokeswoman for the Criminal Records Bureau said the problem arose as new systems were introduced and data was added to a national database. She said: "The CRB's first and foremost priority is to help protect children and vulnerable adults by assisting organisations who are recruiting people into positions of trust. "Priority must be the safety of children and vulnerable adults - neither the CRB or the Met will sacrifice quality for speed.
Source
Australia: Old medical equipment risking public hospital patient care
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) says lives are being put in danger because of outdated equipment at regional hospitals. The AMA's Victorian president, Dr Mark Yates, says a CT scanner at the Bendigo Hospital has been breaking down continually and it was out of action for two weeks recently. He says some patients were taken to a private hospital for tests, but critically ill patients could not be moved, and had to be treated without vital diagnostic assessment. Dr Yates says doctors in Bendigo are extremely concerned about the backlog of inadequate medical equipment. "In Bendigo there's a significant problem, we've got an old piece of machinery in a hospital that is a critical trauma centre and that needs to be fixed and we certainly can't have a situation where patients are put at risk," he said.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Thousands of nurses and public sector staff have been left unable to work for months because of a backlog of police checks. Up to 50,000 workers, including 12,000 nurses, were caught in delays as new computer equipment meant criminal records checks were stockpiled. A row has broken out between the Metropolitan Police and the Criminal Records Bureau over who is to blame for the fiasco.
The delay occurred when the bureau installed a new computer system which was not compatible with the Met's software. It meant all new applications were stacked up until the police fitted their own new system. During that time nurses and other staff could not legally work. Agency nurse Sally Powell, from Islington, threatened to sue the police after delays meant she was unable to work for five months. A letter to her from the Met, passed to Nursing Times, said: "The problem arose because the Criminal Records Bureau went live with a computer system linking to a national database in February 2006. "The Metropolitan Police Service told the Criminal Records Bureau that its computer system would not be ready to link into this in time and that they should not send referrals on that system until the Metropolitan Police Service was live. "However the bureau went ahead anyway and the Met had no choice but to stockpile the CRB referrals."
Ms Powell, 53, filed her application in April but did not get clearance to work until September. Ms Powell, a senior nurse who has been in the NHS since 1969, said: "99.99 per cent of the time you never even need these checks but every time you change organisation you have to get it done. "I was told the check would take between four and six weeks but it took five months. I had to take work doing odd jobs. I had to freeze my mortgage because I had no money coming in. "Some nurses have had to wait for eight months and that has impoverished them. It is an infringement of my civil rights to employment as a qualified nurse. I have written to the Home Secretary." Ms Powell was told by the Met that 50,000 people had been caught up in the delay and 12,000 of those were nurses.
A spokesman for the Met said: "The technical problems which are referred to in the letter sent to Ms Powell were addressed when the MPS system went live on 2 May 2006. "There are a number of outstanding checks - however the backlog referred to has been reduced considerably. Since the new system went live the Metropolitan Police have been processing 50,000 checks a month." A spokeswoman for the Criminal Records Bureau said the problem arose as new systems were introduced and data was added to a national database. She said: "The CRB's first and foremost priority is to help protect children and vulnerable adults by assisting organisations who are recruiting people into positions of trust. "Priority must be the safety of children and vulnerable adults - neither the CRB or the Met will sacrifice quality for speed.
Source
Australia: Old medical equipment risking public hospital patient care
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) says lives are being put in danger because of outdated equipment at regional hospitals. The AMA's Victorian president, Dr Mark Yates, says a CT scanner at the Bendigo Hospital has been breaking down continually and it was out of action for two weeks recently. He says some patients were taken to a private hospital for tests, but critically ill patients could not be moved, and had to be treated without vital diagnostic assessment. Dr Yates says doctors in Bendigo are extremely concerned about the backlog of inadequate medical equipment. "In Bendigo there's a significant problem, we've got an old piece of machinery in a hospital that is a critical trauma centre and that needs to be fixed and we certainly can't have a situation where patients are put at risk," he said.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Friday, November 17, 2006
U.K. dental shortage leads man to superglue own tooth
The Brits have paid their government to provide them with health insurance but collecting what they have paid for is another matter
A man fixed his front tooth with superglue after failing to find an NHS dentist. Gordon Cook, 55, has used the bizarre "DIY dentistry" technique on a loose crown for the last three years - with each fresh application of glue lasting around two months. The father of seven, who was erased from his original dentist's register after moving to a new home in Tranmere, Merseyside, said he turned to glue after losing hope of finding a dentist. He said: "I tried to find a new dentist but they had all gone private. "A lot of them said they would take me on as an NHS patient, but only if I agreed to have the loose crown fixed as a private patient, which would cost around 100 pounds.
"In the end, I just decided to take matters into my own hands. I had read somewhere that super glue was invented for medical use, to bond skin, so I gave it a go. "I tried a few different brands but the one I use now, which is just called Industrial Super Glue, is the best. "You can't really taste it but you do have to be careful not to use too much, in case you glue your mouth shut." Mr Cook, a security manager, has now found an NHS dentist and hopes to have the crown fixed professionally.
Councillor Chris Blakeley, chairman of Wirral Council's social care and health overview and scrutiny committee, said: "Mr Cook's solution was rather extreme but he is not alone when it comes to dentistry horror stories. "People are finding it extremely difficult to find an NHS dentist, and we are currently gathering evidence to assess the scale of the problem, which is not unique to this area."
Source
Australia: A government ambulance service near-meltdown
Ambulance employees racked up 610,058 hours in overtime last year - the equivalent of an extra 334 full-time staff - as the state's health system continued to struggle. The overtime hours cost the Government about $23.5 million for the extra hours. It came as the demand for emergency code 1 services increased by 12.2 per cent last year and hospitals continued to struggle to provide services.
Ambulance Employees Australia Queensland spokesman Steve Crow said the continued reliance on overtime was akin to a "pressure cooker" situation. "My concern is how long they can they keep it up," he said. "It's just stupendous - or stupid." Mr Crow said the organisation received daily reports from paramedics about their overtime concerns, particularly in the busy metropolitan regions, compounding their already stressful job. "It is a stressful job," he said. "Our ambos take home a great deal of work on their shoulders."
Emergency Services Minister Pat Purcell said overtime was an integral part of the Ambulance Service's delivery model. Despite the growth in demand, the service reduced its overtime hours "as a result of more efficient and effective work practices and resource development, including matching resources to community demand profiles". "When recalled to duty, paramedics are paid overtime for all time worked," Mr Purcell said. Although the actual overtime hours worked were down 25,332 on last year, the cost was up $1.167 million.
Opposition emergency services spokesman Ted Malone said the figures cast serious doubts on the management. "There are some real problems within the managerial side of the QAS," he said. "With no disrespect to the people, if you had a heart attack do you really want a person who has been working for 16 hours to save your life?" He said reasons for the increases included ambulances being "used as hospitals" while emergency departments were on bypass.
Queensland's hospitals continue to experience massive demand. In the most recent Hospital Performance Report to the end of September, 11.9 per cent of patients awaiting category 1 elective surgery had "long waits". Likewise, 22 per cent of patients waiting for category 2 surgery and 32.9 per cent of patients awaiting category 3 surgeries had long waits.
The Department of Emergency Services annual report said the service would employ 70 additional paramedics this financial year to cope with the increasing demand. A further 144 frontline staff will be employed over the next two years to address issues of health and safety, fatigue and roster reform. Last October, paramedics took industrial action for the first time to highlight the increasing demands on workers.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
The Brits have paid their government to provide them with health insurance but collecting what they have paid for is another matter
A man fixed his front tooth with superglue after failing to find an NHS dentist. Gordon Cook, 55, has used the bizarre "DIY dentistry" technique on a loose crown for the last three years - with each fresh application of glue lasting around two months. The father of seven, who was erased from his original dentist's register after moving to a new home in Tranmere, Merseyside, said he turned to glue after losing hope of finding a dentist. He said: "I tried to find a new dentist but they had all gone private. "A lot of them said they would take me on as an NHS patient, but only if I agreed to have the loose crown fixed as a private patient, which would cost around 100 pounds.
"In the end, I just decided to take matters into my own hands. I had read somewhere that super glue was invented for medical use, to bond skin, so I gave it a go. "I tried a few different brands but the one I use now, which is just called Industrial Super Glue, is the best. "You can't really taste it but you do have to be careful not to use too much, in case you glue your mouth shut." Mr Cook, a security manager, has now found an NHS dentist and hopes to have the crown fixed professionally.
Councillor Chris Blakeley, chairman of Wirral Council's social care and health overview and scrutiny committee, said: "Mr Cook's solution was rather extreme but he is not alone when it comes to dentistry horror stories. "People are finding it extremely difficult to find an NHS dentist, and we are currently gathering evidence to assess the scale of the problem, which is not unique to this area."
Source
Australia: A government ambulance service near-meltdown
Ambulance employees racked up 610,058 hours in overtime last year - the equivalent of an extra 334 full-time staff - as the state's health system continued to struggle. The overtime hours cost the Government about $23.5 million for the extra hours. It came as the demand for emergency code 1 services increased by 12.2 per cent last year and hospitals continued to struggle to provide services.
Ambulance Employees Australia Queensland spokesman Steve Crow said the continued reliance on overtime was akin to a "pressure cooker" situation. "My concern is how long they can they keep it up," he said. "It's just stupendous - or stupid." Mr Crow said the organisation received daily reports from paramedics about their overtime concerns, particularly in the busy metropolitan regions, compounding their already stressful job. "It is a stressful job," he said. "Our ambos take home a great deal of work on their shoulders."
Emergency Services Minister Pat Purcell said overtime was an integral part of the Ambulance Service's delivery model. Despite the growth in demand, the service reduced its overtime hours "as a result of more efficient and effective work practices and resource development, including matching resources to community demand profiles". "When recalled to duty, paramedics are paid overtime for all time worked," Mr Purcell said. Although the actual overtime hours worked were down 25,332 on last year, the cost was up $1.167 million.
Opposition emergency services spokesman Ted Malone said the figures cast serious doubts on the management. "There are some real problems within the managerial side of the QAS," he said. "With no disrespect to the people, if you had a heart attack do you really want a person who has been working for 16 hours to save your life?" He said reasons for the increases included ambulances being "used as hospitals" while emergency departments were on bypass.
Queensland's hospitals continue to experience massive demand. In the most recent Hospital Performance Report to the end of September, 11.9 per cent of patients awaiting category 1 elective surgery had "long waits". Likewise, 22 per cent of patients waiting for category 2 surgery and 32.9 per cent of patients awaiting category 3 surgeries had long waits.
The Department of Emergency Services annual report said the service would employ 70 additional paramedics this financial year to cope with the increasing demand. A further 144 frontline staff will be employed over the next two years to address issues of health and safety, fatigue and roster reform. Last October, paramedics took industrial action for the first time to highlight the increasing demands on workers.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Thursday, November 16, 2006
THE BRITISH DENTAL DISASTER CONTINUES
Plenty of money for ever more bureaucrats but cutbacks in money for employing dentists -- with the inevitable results. Sad that it is hurting kids, though
THOUSANDS of children are being forced to wait three years or more for braces or corrective dental treatment, after new government regulations that affect the way dentists work. Patients needing treatment to straighten protruding teeth or correct misaligned jaws are facing long waits and permanent dental damage because of a shortage of practitioners and a lack of funding for orthodontic work, the British Dental Association (BDA) has said.
An estimated two million Britons are now unable to find NHS dentists after the introduction of dental contracts by the Department of Health in April, prompting increasing numbers to seek treatment abroad.
While many children require dental surgery before adulthood to prevent permanent damage, the new contracts will cut the number of children receiving orthodontic work by up to a fifth, the BDA says. Under the previous system, dentists were responsible for budgeting for orthodontic treatment. They are now limited to spending a certain amount each year, forcing them to limit treatment to the most needy.
A lack of funding for training has also exacerbated the shortage of specialist orthodontic dentists, experts say. A BDA spokeswoman told The Times: "The BDA is aware that since the introduction of the new dental contract in April, access to orthodontic treatment has been reduced. "This is a national issue surrounding the funding for these treatments. Only those patients who most need treatment will be able to get it on the NHS. "It's estimated the new criteria will reduce the number of children treated by up to 20 per cent. Those who do qualify for treatment may find they are on a waiting list of several years."
Some dentists who formerly provided orthodontics in less complex cases have now been given purely dental contracts, which has led to a reduction in the amount of orthodontic treatment, the BDA said. The Department of Health said yesterday: "The transition to the new arrangements has inevitably thrown up some challenges, but we are confident the NHS is now taking advantage of the reforms to put orthodontic services onto a more secure footing for the future." [Pure waffle!]
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Plenty of money for ever more bureaucrats but cutbacks in money for employing dentists -- with the inevitable results. Sad that it is hurting kids, though
THOUSANDS of children are being forced to wait three years or more for braces or corrective dental treatment, after new government regulations that affect the way dentists work. Patients needing treatment to straighten protruding teeth or correct misaligned jaws are facing long waits and permanent dental damage because of a shortage of practitioners and a lack of funding for orthodontic work, the British Dental Association (BDA) has said.
An estimated two million Britons are now unable to find NHS dentists after the introduction of dental contracts by the Department of Health in April, prompting increasing numbers to seek treatment abroad.
While many children require dental surgery before adulthood to prevent permanent damage, the new contracts will cut the number of children receiving orthodontic work by up to a fifth, the BDA says. Under the previous system, dentists were responsible for budgeting for orthodontic treatment. They are now limited to spending a certain amount each year, forcing them to limit treatment to the most needy.
A lack of funding for training has also exacerbated the shortage of specialist orthodontic dentists, experts say. A BDA spokeswoman told The Times: "The BDA is aware that since the introduction of the new dental contract in April, access to orthodontic treatment has been reduced. "This is a national issue surrounding the funding for these treatments. Only those patients who most need treatment will be able to get it on the NHS. "It's estimated the new criteria will reduce the number of children treated by up to 20 per cent. Those who do qualify for treatment may find they are on a waiting list of several years."
Some dentists who formerly provided orthodontics in less complex cases have now been given purely dental contracts, which has led to a reduction in the amount of orthodontic treatment, the BDA said. The Department of Health said yesterday: "The transition to the new arrangements has inevitably thrown up some challenges, but we are confident the NHS is now taking advantage of the reforms to put orthodontic services onto a more secure footing for the future." [Pure waffle!]
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
The strange priorities of government social workers again
They only take kids away from responsible, loving parents. It doesn't give them a rush of power to take kids off trash parents
A teenager was returned to a foster family even though care officials knew the adolescent had been repeatedly sexually abused by a family member, a scathing report into Tasmanian foster care has found. The case was one of seven of alleged abuse of children in foster or "out of home" care studied by Tasmania's outgoing Commissioner for Children.
In his report, released yesterday, David Fanning said the foster system had failed children and that abuse was likely to be occurring still. He recommended a review, particularly of foster parent selection and placement monitoring, as well as improvements to support for foster children and carers. "There probably can be no greater failure of a system that seeks to protect children than actually (placing) a child in ... circumstances where they are further abused," he said. The system had failed children. "And ... I can't guarantee they're not failing children currently or won't fail them in the future," he said. The failings were so serious that a further audit of the files was pointless. Instead, he called for immediate reform and increased funding. "In all likelihood, any audit would reveal instances of abuse," he said.
In the worst case, Department of Health and Human Services workers returned an adolescent to a family in which it was known the child had been abused. The placement was supported by DHHS "even though there were ongoing concerns noted onfile by several workers that the adolescent child was at risk of sexual abuse by another family member, also residing in the same home". "There were several notifications that the child was indeed being sexually abused by the family member over a long period of time," Dr Fanning's report found. "The DHHS response to this abuse was to interview all parties, including the child and the alleged perpetrator and to accept assurances, including the child's, that sexual abuse was not occurring in the home. "It was later disclosed by the parties that there had been an ongoing sexual relationship between the child and the family member and therefore the child had not been protected in the placement."
Dr Fanning's report, carried out at the recommendation of an earlier damning ombudsman's investigation into abuse of state wards, is the fifth released in recent days pointing to a fundamental failure of child protection in Tasmania. Health and Human Services Minister Lara Giddings conceded last week that the system had failed and announced the appointment of an interim replacement for Mr Fanning. But that replacement, former welfare department head Dennis Daniels, withdrew on Friday after a victim of physical abuse made allegations relating to Mr Daniels's time as a staff member in a boys home in the 1960s.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
They only take kids away from responsible, loving parents. It doesn't give them a rush of power to take kids off trash parents
A teenager was returned to a foster family even though care officials knew the adolescent had been repeatedly sexually abused by a family member, a scathing report into Tasmanian foster care has found. The case was one of seven of alleged abuse of children in foster or "out of home" care studied by Tasmania's outgoing Commissioner for Children.
In his report, released yesterday, David Fanning said the foster system had failed children and that abuse was likely to be occurring still. He recommended a review, particularly of foster parent selection and placement monitoring, as well as improvements to support for foster children and carers. "There probably can be no greater failure of a system that seeks to protect children than actually (placing) a child in ... circumstances where they are further abused," he said. The system had failed children. "And ... I can't guarantee they're not failing children currently or won't fail them in the future," he said. The failings were so serious that a further audit of the files was pointless. Instead, he called for immediate reform and increased funding. "In all likelihood, any audit would reveal instances of abuse," he said.
In the worst case, Department of Health and Human Services workers returned an adolescent to a family in which it was known the child had been abused. The placement was supported by DHHS "even though there were ongoing concerns noted onfile by several workers that the adolescent child was at risk of sexual abuse by another family member, also residing in the same home". "There were several notifications that the child was indeed being sexually abused by the family member over a long period of time," Dr Fanning's report found. "The DHHS response to this abuse was to interview all parties, including the child and the alleged perpetrator and to accept assurances, including the child's, that sexual abuse was not occurring in the home. "It was later disclosed by the parties that there had been an ongoing sexual relationship between the child and the family member and therefore the child had not been protected in the placement."
Dr Fanning's report, carried out at the recommendation of an earlier damning ombudsman's investigation into abuse of state wards, is the fifth released in recent days pointing to a fundamental failure of child protection in Tasmania. Health and Human Services Minister Lara Giddings conceded last week that the system had failed and announced the appointment of an interim replacement for Mr Fanning. But that replacement, former welfare department head Dennis Daniels, withdrew on Friday after a victim of physical abuse made allegations relating to Mr Daniels's time as a staff member in a boys home in the 1960s.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Massachusetts medical mess
How to know when a politician is lying, asks an old joke. The answer: his lips are moving. There were plenty of loose lips leading to last spring's passage of the Massachusetts health reform that instituted an individual mandate, placed fees on employers, and offered increased subsidies to low income residents.
Led by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, supporters promised that health insurance could be provided with only a slight increase in expenditures. Skeptics at the time pointed out that this would not be possible, but were dismissed. Mr. Romney was celebrated as a bold innovator in the national press. Many governors have taken note and are reportedly looking at adopting similar plans. California is no exception. If re-elected, Gov. Schwarzenegger has said that health care reform will be the main platform in the 2007 State of the State address. It is likely that a Romney-style plan will be the cornerstone of his reform agenda.
The klieg lights are now off and the press has moved on to other stories. It's time to bring heaven to earth and make this thing work. What's the story? Administration officials are now telling Wall Street they expect the plan to be quite expensive. In an Aug. 17 filing to support general obligation bonds, officials project that the new plan will increase Massachusetts government health spending by $276.4 million in 2007. That's a $151 million boost over what the public was told the plan would cost as recently as April. "Somebody once told me: if you want to know what is really going on in state government, look at the bond documents," the writers at HealthyBlog, who are tracking the details of the implementation process, pointed out, when posting the filings. "They can say whatever they want to the public, but they can go to jail for fibbing to Wall Street."
The filing reveals why Mr. Romney and friends had no problem getting consensus from the health community, legislative Democrats, and even Sen. Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat. The plan provides $386 million in rate increases for "hospitals, physicians and managed care organizations." Current government programs get a boost of $85.2 million, restoring the gold-plating to Mass Medicaid benefits, that is, including dental and eye care, costing $51.7 million, and expanding MassHealth to families living at three times the poverty level added another $38 million. Although federal taxpayers are expected to pick up some of this tab, the majority of it will fall on Bay State taxpayers. And the real bill will certainly be higher. The filing discloses that the plans being discussed by the panel for low income people will cost $25 million more than originally projected. This would put total first year costs north of $300 million.
The plan is premised on the belief that cost-shifting by the uninsured and inefficient usage of the current system is driving costs. Full coverage is the lynchpin of the plan. Yet it's hard to see how the state will get even close to 100 percent participation, the whole point of the expensive exercise. On the subsidized plans, families will be expected to spend up to 7.7 percent of their income on health coverage. If eligible residents say "no thanks" to this new monthly bill, people are supposed to pay penalties under the individual mandate. This could lead to the absurd result of confiscating a person's earned income tax credit -- a government handout -- because one refused to accept a health care subsidy.
Officials haven't even started designing the private plans -- the plans that non-poor individuals must purchase by July of 2007 or face fines. Today, the average health plan for an individual in Massachusetts costs more than $5,000, thanks to state regulations that prohibit sensible underwriting and load plans up with mandated benefits. The new, supposedly unsubsidized plans are promised to come in at $300 a month with all current and future mandates intact. The CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, a large insurer, recently told the Boston Business Journal that this would only be possible "with a lot of cost sharing [and] limits on certain kinds of services on a covered basis and the co-insurance after that." Cost sharing is simply code for taxpayer subsidy. As for mandate relief, don't count on it. Mr. Romney recently added another mandate to Massachusetts' already long list when he signed a bill prescribing how insurance companies must reimburse for prosthetic devices.
The extra money must come from somewhere, and the state's employers will be in the crosshairs. Mr. Romney is on his way out and the new governor, as well as the people he appoints to the new health care bureaucracies, will have not been party to any deal limiting business contributions to $295 a head. Conservative supporters of the plan claimed that the $295 would be the ceiling of a possible payroll tax, but it will more likely prove to be a floor. State activists, legislatures and the Democratic gubernatorial hopeful are already grumbling that businesses need to pay more. "I don't think it's the final word," Democratic gubernatorial nominee Deval Patrick told CommonWealth magazine when queried on the new health care law. "I think what we have is a framework for debate."
Given the trajectory and timeline of the process, what Massachusetts might have is a framework for a debate over which presidential hopefuls' health care reform was a bigger boondoggle, Mr. Romney's or former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis'. That is something other governors might take note of before they jump on the mandate express.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
How to know when a politician is lying, asks an old joke. The answer: his lips are moving. There were plenty of loose lips leading to last spring's passage of the Massachusetts health reform that instituted an individual mandate, placed fees on employers, and offered increased subsidies to low income residents.
Led by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, supporters promised that health insurance could be provided with only a slight increase in expenditures. Skeptics at the time pointed out that this would not be possible, but were dismissed. Mr. Romney was celebrated as a bold innovator in the national press. Many governors have taken note and are reportedly looking at adopting similar plans. California is no exception. If re-elected, Gov. Schwarzenegger has said that health care reform will be the main platform in the 2007 State of the State address. It is likely that a Romney-style plan will be the cornerstone of his reform agenda.
The klieg lights are now off and the press has moved on to other stories. It's time to bring heaven to earth and make this thing work. What's the story? Administration officials are now telling Wall Street they expect the plan to be quite expensive. In an Aug. 17 filing to support general obligation bonds, officials project that the new plan will increase Massachusetts government health spending by $276.4 million in 2007. That's a $151 million boost over what the public was told the plan would cost as recently as April. "Somebody once told me: if you want to know what is really going on in state government, look at the bond documents," the writers at HealthyBlog, who are tracking the details of the implementation process, pointed out, when posting the filings. "They can say whatever they want to the public, but they can go to jail for fibbing to Wall Street."
The filing reveals why Mr. Romney and friends had no problem getting consensus from the health community, legislative Democrats, and even Sen. Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat. The plan provides $386 million in rate increases for "hospitals, physicians and managed care organizations." Current government programs get a boost of $85.2 million, restoring the gold-plating to Mass Medicaid benefits, that is, including dental and eye care, costing $51.7 million, and expanding MassHealth to families living at three times the poverty level added another $38 million. Although federal taxpayers are expected to pick up some of this tab, the majority of it will fall on Bay State taxpayers. And the real bill will certainly be higher. The filing discloses that the plans being discussed by the panel for low income people will cost $25 million more than originally projected. This would put total first year costs north of $300 million.
The plan is premised on the belief that cost-shifting by the uninsured and inefficient usage of the current system is driving costs. Full coverage is the lynchpin of the plan. Yet it's hard to see how the state will get even close to 100 percent participation, the whole point of the expensive exercise. On the subsidized plans, families will be expected to spend up to 7.7 percent of their income on health coverage. If eligible residents say "no thanks" to this new monthly bill, people are supposed to pay penalties under the individual mandate. This could lead to the absurd result of confiscating a person's earned income tax credit -- a government handout -- because one refused to accept a health care subsidy.
Officials haven't even started designing the private plans -- the plans that non-poor individuals must purchase by July of 2007 or face fines. Today, the average health plan for an individual in Massachusetts costs more than $5,000, thanks to state regulations that prohibit sensible underwriting and load plans up with mandated benefits. The new, supposedly unsubsidized plans are promised to come in at $300 a month with all current and future mandates intact. The CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, a large insurer, recently told the Boston Business Journal that this would only be possible "with a lot of cost sharing [and] limits on certain kinds of services on a covered basis and the co-insurance after that." Cost sharing is simply code for taxpayer subsidy. As for mandate relief, don't count on it. Mr. Romney recently added another mandate to Massachusetts' already long list when he signed a bill prescribing how insurance companies must reimburse for prosthetic devices.
The extra money must come from somewhere, and the state's employers will be in the crosshairs. Mr. Romney is on his way out and the new governor, as well as the people he appoints to the new health care bureaucracies, will have not been party to any deal limiting business contributions to $295 a head. Conservative supporters of the plan claimed that the $295 would be the ceiling of a possible payroll tax, but it will more likely prove to be a floor. State activists, legislatures and the Democratic gubernatorial hopeful are already grumbling that businesses need to pay more. "I don't think it's the final word," Democratic gubernatorial nominee Deval Patrick told CommonWealth magazine when queried on the new health care law. "I think what we have is a framework for debate."
Given the trajectory and timeline of the process, what Massachusetts might have is a framework for a debate over which presidential hopefuls' health care reform was a bigger boondoggle, Mr. Romney's or former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis'. That is something other governors might take note of before they jump on the mandate express.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Monday, November 13, 2006
UNPLEASANT NURSES IN THE NHS
A NATIONAL Health Service trust is offering nurses free cappuccinos and chocolate chip biscuits to encourage them to smile at patients. King's College hospital NHS Trust in London introduced the reward scheme after surveys raised concerns that nurses were not being nice enough to the sick. One common complaint was that nurses almost ignored the patient and chatted about the person's condition as if he or she were not present.
In recent years there have been growing concerns about nurses who are "too posh to wash" and prefer to spend their time on administrative and technical tasks rather than basic care. Two years ago a resolution at the annual congress of the Royal College of Nursing proposed that nurses were now "too clever to care" and suggested that the compassionate part of their job should be delegated to healthcare assistants. The provocative motion was a reference to nurses increasingly concentrating on technical duties.
The new motivational scheme originated in a Seattle fish market, where it was used to boost sales. Trusts are introducing new initiatives to improve their "customer services" because, under government reforms, hospitals now need to compete for patients. Matrons at King's College hospital hand special thank-you cards to nurses who are seen smiling at patients or relatives, chatting with patients, having a positive attitude or doing something to make someone's day better. The thank-you cards are then entered in a draw and nurses whose cards are picked out are entitled to free coffee and biscuits at the hospital cafe.
Selina Truman, head of nursing in general medicine at the trust, said: "When our patient survey and complaints came through, we could see that the attitude of some of the nurses was not as positive as it might be. Patients said nurses did not spend enough time with them. We felt that the way in which nurses engaged with patients could be better. "This scheme is very motivating because matrons and ward sisters praise the nurses directly. It has put patients back at the centre of our work." Truman added that although staff were initially cautious about how the scheme would work, they had enjoyed receiving the praise and the treat.
However, an editorial in Nursing Times magazine said nurses did not need bribes to be helpful and pleasant to patients. It said: "Excessive workloads and paperwork prevent nurses from spending time with their patients and caring for them properly. This is a fundamental problem that can never be rectified with a hot drink and a biscuit, or other such imports from industry." Katherine Murphy, of The Patients Association, said: "Good patient care should be part and parcel of the job of nursing, not an add-on."
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
A NATIONAL Health Service trust is offering nurses free cappuccinos and chocolate chip biscuits to encourage them to smile at patients. King's College hospital NHS Trust in London introduced the reward scheme after surveys raised concerns that nurses were not being nice enough to the sick. One common complaint was that nurses almost ignored the patient and chatted about the person's condition as if he or she were not present.
In recent years there have been growing concerns about nurses who are "too posh to wash" and prefer to spend their time on administrative and technical tasks rather than basic care. Two years ago a resolution at the annual congress of the Royal College of Nursing proposed that nurses were now "too clever to care" and suggested that the compassionate part of their job should be delegated to healthcare assistants. The provocative motion was a reference to nurses increasingly concentrating on technical duties.
The new motivational scheme originated in a Seattle fish market, where it was used to boost sales. Trusts are introducing new initiatives to improve their "customer services" because, under government reforms, hospitals now need to compete for patients. Matrons at King's College hospital hand special thank-you cards to nurses who are seen smiling at patients or relatives, chatting with patients, having a positive attitude or doing something to make someone's day better. The thank-you cards are then entered in a draw and nurses whose cards are picked out are entitled to free coffee and biscuits at the hospital cafe.
Selina Truman, head of nursing in general medicine at the trust, said: "When our patient survey and complaints came through, we could see that the attitude of some of the nurses was not as positive as it might be. Patients said nurses did not spend enough time with them. We felt that the way in which nurses engaged with patients could be better. "This scheme is very motivating because matrons and ward sisters praise the nurses directly. It has put patients back at the centre of our work." Truman added that although staff were initially cautious about how the scheme would work, they had enjoyed receiving the praise and the treat.
However, an editorial in Nursing Times magazine said nurses did not need bribes to be helpful and pleasant to patients. It said: "Excessive workloads and paperwork prevent nurses from spending time with their patients and caring for them properly. This is a fundamental problem that can never be rectified with a hot drink and a biscuit, or other such imports from industry." Katherine Murphy, of The Patients Association, said: "Good patient care should be part and parcel of the job of nursing, not an add-on."
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Mother love defeats bureaucracy -- but at a cost of $200,000
This Aussie infant was born with a $200,000 price tag and three mothers -- two of them on the other side of the world. Infertility and strict Australian surrogacy laws forced her mother to visit a revolutionary baby factory in California, where she hand-picked her egg donor and the woman who would give birth to her baby. The business transaction made her dream of a second child come true.
"She is a miracle -- what price do you put on a miracle," said the commissioning mother, Nadia, who did not wish to be identified. "Her creation was approached in a very business-like manner, but she is my baby."
A handful of Los Angeles-based mothers, including two Australians, formed egg donation and surrogacy agency Miracles Inc in response to the increasing number of childless couples who turn to surrogacy for their chance at a family. They charge almost $20,000 for an egg and more than $50,000 to carry a child to full term. The commissioning parents cover all other costs, which can take the bill to $200,000.
While Australia is unlikely to commercialise surrogacy -- where donors and the surrogate can charge for their services -- the nation's attorneys-general met yesterday to discuss uniform laws across the states. The call came after Victorian Labor senator Stephen Conroy and wife Paula Benson's daughter, Isabella, was born to a surrogate mother on Monday. The couple had to go to NSW for the procedures as surrogacy is illegal in Victoria. They are now facing up to five years of paperwork to formally adopt their daughter.
For Nadia, who is in her early 40s, searching overseas for a surrogate mother was a costly but simple process that took 18 months and $200,000. She joined the swelling ranks of women advertising for egg donors, but soon realised she would be relying on the goodwill of strangers because the "archaic" Australian laws make it illegal to profit from surrogacy. "I gave it two months and then I decided I'd never get anywhere. I had cut out an article I read in the newspaper about surrogacy clinics in America so thought I would try there," she said.
Nadia and her husband, whose sperm was used in the process, sifted through 200 profiles before choosing an egg donor and then a separate surrogate. In California, where the process is legal, the egg cost them $19,500 and the price for pregnancy was $52,000. "Although the cost is enormous, the component that goes to the surrogate and donor is minuscule compared to the overall cost," Nadia said. Legal bills, insurance, travel costs, drugs, IVF bills that were not covered by Medicare and astronomical American hospital bills added up to a $200,000 figure that the couple were not expecting. "We didn't truly appreciate the cost until it started, but we were in the privileged position of being able to keep going," Nadia said. "Now, when I look at her I don't think of dollars, or what we went through to get her -- she is just my child."
Still in close contact with the surrogate mother, Nadia helped deliver her daughter and stayed in the same hospital room as the surrogate for the days after the birth. Now back in Sydney, where her child will grow up, there are times when Nadia forgets her daughter's first nine months were spent in another women's womb. "She does something which is very characteristically me and I forget I didn't actually give birth to her," Nadia said. "You are just so caught up in being a parent, and I just love her so much."
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
This Aussie infant was born with a $200,000 price tag and three mothers -- two of them on the other side of the world. Infertility and strict Australian surrogacy laws forced her mother to visit a revolutionary baby factory in California, where she hand-picked her egg donor and the woman who would give birth to her baby. The business transaction made her dream of a second child come true.
"She is a miracle -- what price do you put on a miracle," said the commissioning mother, Nadia, who did not wish to be identified. "Her creation was approached in a very business-like manner, but she is my baby."
A handful of Los Angeles-based mothers, including two Australians, formed egg donation and surrogacy agency Miracles Inc in response to the increasing number of childless couples who turn to surrogacy for their chance at a family. They charge almost $20,000 for an egg and more than $50,000 to carry a child to full term. The commissioning parents cover all other costs, which can take the bill to $200,000.
While Australia is unlikely to commercialise surrogacy -- where donors and the surrogate can charge for their services -- the nation's attorneys-general met yesterday to discuss uniform laws across the states. The call came after Victorian Labor senator Stephen Conroy and wife Paula Benson's daughter, Isabella, was born to a surrogate mother on Monday. The couple had to go to NSW for the procedures as surrogacy is illegal in Victoria. They are now facing up to five years of paperwork to formally adopt their daughter.
For Nadia, who is in her early 40s, searching overseas for a surrogate mother was a costly but simple process that took 18 months and $200,000. She joined the swelling ranks of women advertising for egg donors, but soon realised she would be relying on the goodwill of strangers because the "archaic" Australian laws make it illegal to profit from surrogacy. "I gave it two months and then I decided I'd never get anywhere. I had cut out an article I read in the newspaper about surrogacy clinics in America so thought I would try there," she said.
Nadia and her husband, whose sperm was used in the process, sifted through 200 profiles before choosing an egg donor and then a separate surrogate. In California, where the process is legal, the egg cost them $19,500 and the price for pregnancy was $52,000. "Although the cost is enormous, the component that goes to the surrogate and donor is minuscule compared to the overall cost," Nadia said. Legal bills, insurance, travel costs, drugs, IVF bills that were not covered by Medicare and astronomical American hospital bills added up to a $200,000 figure that the couple were not expecting. "We didn't truly appreciate the cost until it started, but we were in the privileged position of being able to keep going," Nadia said. "Now, when I look at her I don't think of dollars, or what we went through to get her -- she is just my child."
Still in close contact with the surrogate mother, Nadia helped deliver her daughter and stayed in the same hospital room as the surrogate for the days after the birth. Now back in Sydney, where her child will grow up, there are times when Nadia forgets her daughter's first nine months were spent in another women's womb. "She does something which is very characteristically me and I forget I didn't actually give birth to her," Nadia said. "You are just so caught up in being a parent, and I just love her so much."
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Saturday, November 11, 2006
DANGEROUS TO GET SICK IN SCOTLAND
Feeling under the weather? Be careful who you tell. Health Service Journal (Nov 2) reports on plans by the Scottish Executive to quarantine anyone with a serious infectious disease in their own home. A consultation document also proposes that, under revamped public health laws, people could be compelled to undergo examination or treatment against their will.
Tim Brett, the director of Health Protection Scotland, says that the measures would help in a flu pandemic. “I’m sure the vast majority of people would accept any such requirement.” The plans recognise the significant human rights issues raised by such measures but Scotland’s Chief Medical Officer says that it is time public health laws were updated. They date from 1897.
Source
Baby death shame files in Tasmania
All due to the usual lazy social worker dictum that children MUST be left with their parents, no matter what
The State Government has admitted it failed to protect a baby boy who died of a methadone overdose in the state's South last year. A further nine children known to the state's failed child protection system have died since 2005 and suspected child abuse is blamed for at least three of the deaths.
The files of the dead have revealed a disjointed and overwhelmed system that failed to adequately protect the vulnerable children. The children came from homes with a history of family violence and where sustained drug and alcohol abuse occurred. Doctors, teachers, neighbours and health professionals had told the system multiple times that the children and their brothers and sisters had been abused and neglected.
Their files contained hopeful assumptions from swamped workers such as "doctor will keep an eye on him" and "extended family making alternative arrangements". Their families had struggled to access help to cope with complex issues including poverty, drug and alcohol abuse and family violence.
Health Minister Lara Giddings admitted to being shocked and saddened at the stories of abuse, neglect and death and promised the Government would learn from them. "I'm not proud of this story," she said. "There had been failings in the child protection system in relation to that child."
A Health and Human Services Department committee will investigate the deaths to determine whether the child protection system could have prevented them. The Government has accepted the recommendations of former children's commissioner David Fanning contained in two reports into child deaths. Ms Giddings said a new, $600,000 IT system would be running early next year to replace the paper files case workers have struggled to navigate and cross-reference.
Laws to trigger the automatic independent review of deaths or serious injuries of children known to the system will be introduced to Tasmania. Mr Fanning noted there was "no clear and routine process for departmental reviews of child deaths" and only two deaths had been reviewed since 1997. One report said "unfortunately there is very limited data on numbers of child deaths in Tasmania where a child was known to child protection services". It said the service could use such data to learn from experience and "reduce the incidence of preventable child deaths".
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Feeling under the weather? Be careful who you tell. Health Service Journal (Nov 2) reports on plans by the Scottish Executive to quarantine anyone with a serious infectious disease in their own home. A consultation document also proposes that, under revamped public health laws, people could be compelled to undergo examination or treatment against their will.
Tim Brett, the director of Health Protection Scotland, says that the measures would help in a flu pandemic. “I’m sure the vast majority of people would accept any such requirement.” The plans recognise the significant human rights issues raised by such measures but Scotland’s Chief Medical Officer says that it is time public health laws were updated. They date from 1897.
Source
Baby death shame files in Tasmania
All due to the usual lazy social worker dictum that children MUST be left with their parents, no matter what
The State Government has admitted it failed to protect a baby boy who died of a methadone overdose in the state's South last year. A further nine children known to the state's failed child protection system have died since 2005 and suspected child abuse is blamed for at least three of the deaths.
The files of the dead have revealed a disjointed and overwhelmed system that failed to adequately protect the vulnerable children. The children came from homes with a history of family violence and where sustained drug and alcohol abuse occurred. Doctors, teachers, neighbours and health professionals had told the system multiple times that the children and their brothers and sisters had been abused and neglected.
Their files contained hopeful assumptions from swamped workers such as "doctor will keep an eye on him" and "extended family making alternative arrangements". Their families had struggled to access help to cope with complex issues including poverty, drug and alcohol abuse and family violence.
Health Minister Lara Giddings admitted to being shocked and saddened at the stories of abuse, neglect and death and promised the Government would learn from them. "I'm not proud of this story," she said. "There had been failings in the child protection system in relation to that child."
A Health and Human Services Department committee will investigate the deaths to determine whether the child protection system could have prevented them. The Government has accepted the recommendations of former children's commissioner David Fanning contained in two reports into child deaths. Ms Giddings said a new, $600,000 IT system would be running early next year to replace the paper files case workers have struggled to navigate and cross-reference.
Laws to trigger the automatic independent review of deaths or serious injuries of children known to the system will be introduced to Tasmania. Mr Fanning noted there was "no clear and routine process for departmental reviews of child deaths" and only two deaths had been reviewed since 1997. One report said "unfortunately there is very limited data on numbers of child deaths in Tasmania where a child was known to child protection services". It said the service could use such data to learn from experience and "reduce the incidence of preventable child deaths".
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Friday, November 10, 2006
Tyrannical government surrogacy regulations in the Australian State of Victoria
Taking a treasured child away from its father benefits whom? Knowall Leftist regulators obviously don't even consider that.
Stephen Conroy and his wife may be forced to leave their home in Victoria to avoid state laws prohibiting them from adopting a child from a surrogate birth. The couple on Monday announced the birth of Isabella in a Sydney hospital after a close family friend donated an egg that Senator Conroy fertilised by IVF. The fetus was then incubated by a third woman - another friend of the couple. But according to the Victorian Law Reform Commission, the couple have no rights to the baby, even though the Labor senator provided the sperm used to conceive the child.
They had resorted to a surrogate birth because Senator Conroy's wife Paula Benson was unable to conceive or carry a child after suffering ovarian cancer. The IVF process and birth took place in Sydney because surrogacy is illegal in the couple's home state of Victoria. Any arrangement with the surrogate mother has no legal validity in Victoria and Senator Conroy is not considered the father. Victorian law states: "The surrogate mother and her partner, if any, are the child's parents, regardless of any agreement or arrangement between the parties. "The commissioning couple are not the parents of the child even if sperm and/or eggs have been provided by the commissioning couple. "The Infertility Treatment Act makes all surrogacy agreements void." The surrogate parents cannot transfer guardianship of the child to the "commissioning couple", nor can they permanently surrender the right to care for the child.
Senator Conroy and his wife can apply for a parenting order from the Family Court of Australia that would give them legal rights and responsibilities over the girl until she turns 18. However, the surrogate mother would still be considered the mother. The baby can be adopted in Victoria only if the surrogate mother is related to Ms Benson. The couple has not revealed the identity of the egg donor or the surrogate - describing them only as close friends.
In NSW, the surrogate is also considered the baby's mother. But according to the Department of Community Services, which handles adoptions in NSW, Senator Conroy and his wife could adopt Isabella. "It's the same as the process that step-parents wanting to adopt a child would go through," a spokeswoman said.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Taking a treasured child away from its father benefits whom? Knowall Leftist regulators obviously don't even consider that.
Stephen Conroy and his wife may be forced to leave their home in Victoria to avoid state laws prohibiting them from adopting a child from a surrogate birth. The couple on Monday announced the birth of Isabella in a Sydney hospital after a close family friend donated an egg that Senator Conroy fertilised by IVF. The fetus was then incubated by a third woman - another friend of the couple. But according to the Victorian Law Reform Commission, the couple have no rights to the baby, even though the Labor senator provided the sperm used to conceive the child.
They had resorted to a surrogate birth because Senator Conroy's wife Paula Benson was unable to conceive or carry a child after suffering ovarian cancer. The IVF process and birth took place in Sydney because surrogacy is illegal in the couple's home state of Victoria. Any arrangement with the surrogate mother has no legal validity in Victoria and Senator Conroy is not considered the father. Victorian law states: "The surrogate mother and her partner, if any, are the child's parents, regardless of any agreement or arrangement between the parties. "The commissioning couple are not the parents of the child even if sperm and/or eggs have been provided by the commissioning couple. "The Infertility Treatment Act makes all surrogacy agreements void." The surrogate parents cannot transfer guardianship of the child to the "commissioning couple", nor can they permanently surrender the right to care for the child.
Senator Conroy and his wife can apply for a parenting order from the Family Court of Australia that would give them legal rights and responsibilities over the girl until she turns 18. However, the surrogate mother would still be considered the mother. The baby can be adopted in Victoria only if the surrogate mother is related to Ms Benson. The couple has not revealed the identity of the egg donor or the surrogate - describing them only as close friends.
In NSW, the surrogate is also considered the baby's mother. But according to the Department of Community Services, which handles adoptions in NSW, Senator Conroy and his wife could adopt Isabella. "It's the same as the process that step-parents wanting to adopt a child would go through," a spokeswoman said.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Thursday, November 09, 2006
British girl died waiting for life-saving Valium jab
Britain's power-mad health bureaucracy treats a common-as-dirt prescription drug as if it were heroin
Britain's largest ambulance service is calling for a change in the law to allow emergency response crews to supply a life-saving tranquilliser, after the death of a teenage girl who suffered a severe epileptic fit. Kayleigh Macilwraith-Christie, 15, suffered heart failure earlier this year after ambulance controllers repeatedly failed to get a trained paramedic to her who could administer an injection of diazepam, better known as Valium, a Class C controlled drug.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Britain's power-mad health bureaucracy treats a common-as-dirt prescription drug as if it were heroin
Britain's largest ambulance service is calling for a change in the law to allow emergency response crews to supply a life-saving tranquilliser, after the death of a teenage girl who suffered a severe epileptic fit. Kayleigh Macilwraith-Christie, 15, suffered heart failure earlier this year after ambulance controllers repeatedly failed to get a trained paramedic to her who could administer an injection of diazepam, better known as Valium, a Class C controlled drug.
The London Ambulance Service NHS Trust sent a series of emergency medical technicians, who are trained in advanced first aid but are not permitted to provide the tranquilliser. Further delays by the Ambulance Service meant that the teenager did not get the injection until she reached Whittington Hospital, 50 minutes after suffering the fit on July 14.
Her mother, Jean Murphy,is to deliver to the Prime Minister a 12,000-name petition demanding that a trained paramedic be put on every ambulance.
The Ambulance Service has since held an investigation and admitted failings with regard to Kayleigh’s death. The trust is now seeking an amendment to regulations to allow technicians, who can already administer some other drugs, to administer diazepam.
A statement from the service, said: “We accept that Kayleigh may have benefited from paramedic intervention and we are committed to learning lessons from this case.”
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
NC: MEDICAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IMPROVES PATIENT SERVICES
Family physician Brian Forrest, M.D. started Access Health Care in 2002 to provide low-cost care and spend more time with his patients. Unlike the large practices he left, where each of the 50 doctors saw between 32 and 40 patients a day, spending at most 15 minutes with each, Forrest now sees no more than 15 patients a day and takes an average 45 minutes with each of them.
Lower Prices, Higher Income
Forrest charges a fee of $45 per visit, posts prices for additional tests so patients know what the bill will be, and even does house calls for an all-inclusive price of $150.
How does he do this? Forrest doesn't file insurance claims. Patients pay with each visit, so there is no delay caused by the office having to wait for the insurer to decide what it will cover. That also means Access Health can use fewer office assistants, as they need not work through each insurance plan's intricacies. That translates into lower overhead costs--which in turn means Forrest can charge less and spend more time with fewer patients. "By not taking insurance we save about $250,000 per year due to not needing the computer systems and extra personnel that are required to file insurance," Forrest explained. "That means we are able to have 3,000 fewer patient visits per year to actually net more income. "That reduced volume lets us spend a lot more time with each patient, and charge them between 50 and 85 percent less than typical offices," Forrest noted.
Insurers' Anxieties
It makes mathematical and practical sense, but surprisingly few medical practices function this way. Forrest blames managed-care contracts with insurers. Non-compete clauses in those contracts forbid doctors from seeing network patients for two years after dropping an insurer. "I think insurance companies feel threatened by physicians that refuse to file insurance," Forrest said. "However, if they would actually look at the cost savings that can be realized, they would see that this type of model is actually beneficial for them. When patients in our office submit their own claims to their insurance and get reimbursed, their bill is always substantially less than the insurance company would have had to pay if the claim had been filed by a typical office.
"Some insurance companies have actually realized this themselves and have started encouraging people they insure to see us--with the benefit of a zero co-pay because it is such cost-effective, quality care," Forrest said. In that scenario, the patient pays for the entire cost of the visit, submits his or her receipt to the insurer, and gets a check back in the mail for 100 percent of the cost.
Modern Housecalls
Doctors Making Housecalls (DMH), based in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, takes a different route to meeting a different population's health needs. Whereas 30 percent of Access Health Care's patients are uninsured, fully 80 percent of those using DMH are insured by Medicare. DMH files all claims for its patients as an out-of-network provider and charges an $85 trip fee that neither Medicare nor private insurers will cover.
Alan Kronhaus, M.D. founded DMH in 2002 on the recommendation of his wife, Shohreh Taavoni, MD. Taavoni saw patients, while Kronhaus ran the business side. The couple now employs four other physicians in the practice, who see a total of 30 patients a day in the Raleigh-Durham metropolitan area.
Advanced Technology
DMH's old-world house calls are aided by twenty-first century technology. Patient records are completely digitized in an Internet-accessible database, so physicians have full access to everything they need while on the road. The physical records are kept in DMH's home office, which also handles insurance claims and scheduling. Physicians go into the office every seven to 10 days to sign papers, and they attend a monthly staff meeting.
Because the doctors spend most of their time on the road, the practice has no physical limitations. "The practice's potential is open-ended, because there are so many compelling applications of the service," Kronhaus said. "But the best way for other groups to replicate our success is to join forces with us. It would allow us to take advantage of the various economies of scale inherent in the business, and to develop enough market power to perhaps get the attention of the commercial insurers."
Growing Practice
Within six months of opening, DMH began making regular visits to retirement communities. Patients do not pay the trip fee for these community visits. Kronhaus would like to offer a similar service to businesses.
The four-year experience of Access Health Care and DMH illustrates the problem with current health insurance, Kronhaus said. "There are bizarre incentives that lead to misallocation of resources," Kronhaus said, citing a study published in the December 2005 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, comparing home care patients with those admitted to the hospital. The home treatment produced similar health results with lower costs. But despite the clear savings, Kronhaus said, "Insurance companies really could [not] care less."
Ability to Expand
Both Access Health Care and DMH would like to expand their services to serve more patients. Similar practices already exist and more are planned, Kronhaus said, citing the Michigan-based Visiting Physicians Association, which now has locations in six states, and Housecalls Express in Florida.
Forrest adds he has been contacted by a score of doctors statewide, including one whose new clinic will cater to Chinese-Americans.
None of this innovation has required more government mandates. But reducing restrictions on providers and insurers to allow them flexibility to meet the needs of patients could accelerate the trend, Kronhaus and Forrest said.
Source
Australia: New public hospital but no extra beds
More of that wonderful government "planning"
Doctors at the Royal Women's Hospital say the baby boom has outstripped the Bracks Government's $250 million expansion plans. They say the new hospital was designed to cater for about 5000 babies a year -- 1000 fewer than were delivered at the hospital in the past year. "The current hospital is already not big enough to cope with the rising birth rates, let alone the new hospital," a doctor said. "Staff are already overworked and we are really upset about it."
Hospital spokeswoman Mandy Frostick denied the claims but admitted there would be no more beds or birthing suites. She said a project website boasting the new hospital would deliver more than "5000 babies" a year was wrong. "It is the same bed capacity. We will have the same birth suites as what we have at present so we should be able to manage our existing demand," she said. Ms Frostick said the new hospital would include a "swing ward" that could be used depending on demand. The RWH is the nation's leading centre for high-risk pregnancies and premature babies. A record 6011 births there last year included 2000 premature and ill babies requiring neo-natal intensive and special care. In the first six months of this year, 2925 babies have been born there. In 2001, it had 4999 births.
RWH insiders said the new hospital would struggle to cope with demand when it opened on the grounds of the Royal Melbourne Hospital in 2008. They said designs were based on old birth rates that did not take into account the baby boom kick-started by the Federal Government's baby bonus. Opposition health spokeswoman Helen Shardey said the Government had continually failed to provide increased capacity in the public hospital system. "Victorian women are having more children and having them later, and therefore perhaps needing the greater level of specialist care," she said.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Family physician Brian Forrest, M.D. started Access Health Care in 2002 to provide low-cost care and spend more time with his patients. Unlike the large practices he left, where each of the 50 doctors saw between 32 and 40 patients a day, spending at most 15 minutes with each, Forrest now sees no more than 15 patients a day and takes an average 45 minutes with each of them.
Lower Prices, Higher Income
Forrest charges a fee of $45 per visit, posts prices for additional tests so patients know what the bill will be, and even does house calls for an all-inclusive price of $150.
How does he do this? Forrest doesn't file insurance claims. Patients pay with each visit, so there is no delay caused by the office having to wait for the insurer to decide what it will cover. That also means Access Health can use fewer office assistants, as they need not work through each insurance plan's intricacies. That translates into lower overhead costs--which in turn means Forrest can charge less and spend more time with fewer patients. "By not taking insurance we save about $250,000 per year due to not needing the computer systems and extra personnel that are required to file insurance," Forrest explained. "That means we are able to have 3,000 fewer patient visits per year to actually net more income. "That reduced volume lets us spend a lot more time with each patient, and charge them between 50 and 85 percent less than typical offices," Forrest noted.
Insurers' Anxieties
It makes mathematical and practical sense, but surprisingly few medical practices function this way. Forrest blames managed-care contracts with insurers. Non-compete clauses in those contracts forbid doctors from seeing network patients for two years after dropping an insurer. "I think insurance companies feel threatened by physicians that refuse to file insurance," Forrest said. "However, if they would actually look at the cost savings that can be realized, they would see that this type of model is actually beneficial for them. When patients in our office submit their own claims to their insurance and get reimbursed, their bill is always substantially less than the insurance company would have had to pay if the claim had been filed by a typical office.
"Some insurance companies have actually realized this themselves and have started encouraging people they insure to see us--with the benefit of a zero co-pay because it is such cost-effective, quality care," Forrest said. In that scenario, the patient pays for the entire cost of the visit, submits his or her receipt to the insurer, and gets a check back in the mail for 100 percent of the cost.
Modern Housecalls
Doctors Making Housecalls (DMH), based in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, takes a different route to meeting a different population's health needs. Whereas 30 percent of Access Health Care's patients are uninsured, fully 80 percent of those using DMH are insured by Medicare. DMH files all claims for its patients as an out-of-network provider and charges an $85 trip fee that neither Medicare nor private insurers will cover.
Alan Kronhaus, M.D. founded DMH in 2002 on the recommendation of his wife, Shohreh Taavoni, MD. Taavoni saw patients, while Kronhaus ran the business side. The couple now employs four other physicians in the practice, who see a total of 30 patients a day in the Raleigh-Durham metropolitan area.
Advanced Technology
DMH's old-world house calls are aided by twenty-first century technology. Patient records are completely digitized in an Internet-accessible database, so physicians have full access to everything they need while on the road. The physical records are kept in DMH's home office, which also handles insurance claims and scheduling. Physicians go into the office every seven to 10 days to sign papers, and they attend a monthly staff meeting.
Because the doctors spend most of their time on the road, the practice has no physical limitations. "The practice's potential is open-ended, because there are so many compelling applications of the service," Kronhaus said. "But the best way for other groups to replicate our success is to join forces with us. It would allow us to take advantage of the various economies of scale inherent in the business, and to develop enough market power to perhaps get the attention of the commercial insurers."
Growing Practice
Within six months of opening, DMH began making regular visits to retirement communities. Patients do not pay the trip fee for these community visits. Kronhaus would like to offer a similar service to businesses.
The four-year experience of Access Health Care and DMH illustrates the problem with current health insurance, Kronhaus said. "There are bizarre incentives that lead to misallocation of resources," Kronhaus said, citing a study published in the December 2005 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, comparing home care patients with those admitted to the hospital. The home treatment produced similar health results with lower costs. But despite the clear savings, Kronhaus said, "Insurance companies really could [not] care less."
Ability to Expand
Both Access Health Care and DMH would like to expand their services to serve more patients. Similar practices already exist and more are planned, Kronhaus said, citing the Michigan-based Visiting Physicians Association, which now has locations in six states, and Housecalls Express in Florida.
Forrest adds he has been contacted by a score of doctors statewide, including one whose new clinic will cater to Chinese-Americans.
None of this innovation has required more government mandates. But reducing restrictions on providers and insurers to allow them flexibility to meet the needs of patients could accelerate the trend, Kronhaus and Forrest said.
Source
Australia: New public hospital but no extra beds
More of that wonderful government "planning"
Doctors at the Royal Women's Hospital say the baby boom has outstripped the Bracks Government's $250 million expansion plans. They say the new hospital was designed to cater for about 5000 babies a year -- 1000 fewer than were delivered at the hospital in the past year. "The current hospital is already not big enough to cope with the rising birth rates, let alone the new hospital," a doctor said. "Staff are already overworked and we are really upset about it."
Hospital spokeswoman Mandy Frostick denied the claims but admitted there would be no more beds or birthing suites. She said a project website boasting the new hospital would deliver more than "5000 babies" a year was wrong. "It is the same bed capacity. We will have the same birth suites as what we have at present so we should be able to manage our existing demand," she said. Ms Frostick said the new hospital would include a "swing ward" that could be used depending on demand. The RWH is the nation's leading centre for high-risk pregnancies and premature babies. A record 6011 births there last year included 2000 premature and ill babies requiring neo-natal intensive and special care. In the first six months of this year, 2925 babies have been born there. In 2001, it had 4999 births.
RWH insiders said the new hospital would struggle to cope with demand when it opened on the grounds of the Royal Melbourne Hospital in 2008. They said designs were based on old birth rates that did not take into account the baby boom kick-started by the Federal Government's baby bonus. Opposition health spokeswoman Helen Shardey said the Government had continually failed to provide increased capacity in the public hospital system. "Victorian women are having more children and having them later, and therefore perhaps needing the greater level of specialist care," she said.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Blues Release New HSA Survey
The national Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) Association has released a new survey of people using consumer-driven health products, especially health savings accounts (HSAs). The study is based on Web site interviews with 3,000 BCBS consumers, a much larger sample than some other surveys that have been conducted.
The results reveal some interesting data, including differences between the behavior of people who have opened an HSA account and those who haven't done so. About 57 percent of those with HSA-qualified insurance coverage have opened accounts, with another 16 percent saying they intend to. Enrollment by age and health status is similar across product lines.
The biggest differences between people with HSAs and those in health plans that are not consumer-driven show up in their behavior and reported satisfaction. People with HSAs are more likely to say they are much more or somewhat more satisfied than they were the previous year with their overall coverage (47 percent), the value they receive from their coverage (44 percent), and their perception of being in charge (36 percent).
Survey respondents enrolled in plans that are not consumer-driven ranked their satisfaction on the three measures much lower: 27 percent, 23 percent, and 18 percent, respectively. More specifically, HSA enrollees report greater satisfaction with respect to:
* access to prevention and wellness: HSA holders 59 percent; non-consumer-driven (non-CD) plans 52 percent;
* health plan enrollment process: HSA 65 percent; non-CD plans 61 percent;
* decision tools in selecting providers: HSA 55 percent; non-CD plans 47 percent;
* decision tools in managing expenses: HSA 54 percent; non-CD plans 42 percent;
* information on benefits: HSA 57 percent; non-CD plans 47 percent;
* cost and quality information: HSA 54 percent; non-CD plans 40 percent; and
* insurer's Web capabilities: HSA 55 percent; non-CD plans 45 percent.
The actual use of tools is higher for HSA holders, too:
* use of nurse hotlines: HSA 10 percent; non-CD plans 6 percent;
* wellness programs: HSA 20 percent; non-CD plans 8 percent;
* provider information tools: HSA 38 percent; non-CD plans 10 percent;
* prescription cost and comparison: HSA 42 percent; non-CD plans 19 percent; and
* Web site for coverage information: HSA 53 percent; non-CD plans 32 percent.
Source
Hard to get compensation for even gross bungles from a government hospital system
A man who had a syringe left in his stomach after being operated on by Jayant Patel claims medical examiners have accused him of putting it there himself at a later date. The accusations were allegedly made during examinations leading up to Hans Huhsmann entering into the State Government settlement process intended to compensate victims of the rogue surgeon. The Courier-Mail heard of the allegation through a third party, but when contacted Mr Huhsmann confirmed the exchanges. "It was raised a few times by them in the examinations and I was very upset," he said. "Where do they think I got those things from? "It is very upsetting and now (the syringe) is too deep to remove and no specialists will touch me."
Although confidentiality agreements have drawn a curtain of secrecy around the compensation proceedings, tales of woe are now starting to leak out. And victims are not happy, referring to a process they say has descended into "a sham, a rort and an affront to all victims". One claim is that some patients have been offered settlements despite unstable medical conditions - like Peter Janstrom, who walked away from mediation and has since been told he may lose a testicle. "They tried to finalise it but I thought we would have another go later on," he said. Others claim to have been pushed into signing contracts for "like it or lump it" amounts; and widows have not received funeral costs.
For Vicki Lester, the Government's promise to pay all her medical expenses came to naught. Ms Lester - who has had nine reconstructive and plastic surgery operations and recently self-funded a trip to Sydney to be operated on by a surgeon of her choice - had her expenses claim rejected. In June, acting premier Anna Bligh wrote to say it was because she rejected a government-selected Brisbane surgeon.
Burnett MP Rob Messenger, who exposed Dr Patel's wrongdoings, said lawyers had in some cases received more money than patients. He said a "high level" of frustration had been expressed to him by a number of victims. Mr Messenger said Estimates Committee figures released had found the average payout of the first 69 settlements was $21,500 - $1.4 million went to patients and $900,000 to lawyers.
Attorney-General Kerry Shine's spokesman said yesterday that 154 of the 379 claims had been resolved, but the details of payments would only be released at the end of the mediation process. The spokesman also said medical specialists involved with assessing patients had been selected by legal representatives for the patients from a panel of specialists submitted by the state. Howwever, he would not comment on specific patients.
Bundaberg Victims Patient Support Group chairman Ian Fleming said that if the mediation process were not improved, it should be shut down. "They have no intention of honouring promises to adequately compensate," he said.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
The national Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) Association has released a new survey of people using consumer-driven health products, especially health savings accounts (HSAs). The study is based on Web site interviews with 3,000 BCBS consumers, a much larger sample than some other surveys that have been conducted.
The results reveal some interesting data, including differences between the behavior of people who have opened an HSA account and those who haven't done so. About 57 percent of those with HSA-qualified insurance coverage have opened accounts, with another 16 percent saying they intend to. Enrollment by age and health status is similar across product lines.
The biggest differences between people with HSAs and those in health plans that are not consumer-driven show up in their behavior and reported satisfaction. People with HSAs are more likely to say they are much more or somewhat more satisfied than they were the previous year with their overall coverage (47 percent), the value they receive from their coverage (44 percent), and their perception of being in charge (36 percent).
Survey respondents enrolled in plans that are not consumer-driven ranked their satisfaction on the three measures much lower: 27 percent, 23 percent, and 18 percent, respectively. More specifically, HSA enrollees report greater satisfaction with respect to:
* access to prevention and wellness: HSA holders 59 percent; non-consumer-driven (non-CD) plans 52 percent;
* health plan enrollment process: HSA 65 percent; non-CD plans 61 percent;
* decision tools in selecting providers: HSA 55 percent; non-CD plans 47 percent;
* decision tools in managing expenses: HSA 54 percent; non-CD plans 42 percent;
* information on benefits: HSA 57 percent; non-CD plans 47 percent;
* cost and quality information: HSA 54 percent; non-CD plans 40 percent; and
* insurer's Web capabilities: HSA 55 percent; non-CD plans 45 percent.
The actual use of tools is higher for HSA holders, too:
* use of nurse hotlines: HSA 10 percent; non-CD plans 6 percent;
* wellness programs: HSA 20 percent; non-CD plans 8 percent;
* provider information tools: HSA 38 percent; non-CD plans 10 percent;
* prescription cost and comparison: HSA 42 percent; non-CD plans 19 percent; and
* Web site for coverage information: HSA 53 percent; non-CD plans 32 percent.
Source
Hard to get compensation for even gross bungles from a government hospital system
A man who had a syringe left in his stomach after being operated on by Jayant Patel claims medical examiners have accused him of putting it there himself at a later date. The accusations were allegedly made during examinations leading up to Hans Huhsmann entering into the State Government settlement process intended to compensate victims of the rogue surgeon. The Courier-Mail heard of the allegation through a third party, but when contacted Mr Huhsmann confirmed the exchanges. "It was raised a few times by them in the examinations and I was very upset," he said. "Where do they think I got those things from? "It is very upsetting and now (the syringe) is too deep to remove and no specialists will touch me."
Although confidentiality agreements have drawn a curtain of secrecy around the compensation proceedings, tales of woe are now starting to leak out. And victims are not happy, referring to a process they say has descended into "a sham, a rort and an affront to all victims". One claim is that some patients have been offered settlements despite unstable medical conditions - like Peter Janstrom, who walked away from mediation and has since been told he may lose a testicle. "They tried to finalise it but I thought we would have another go later on," he said. Others claim to have been pushed into signing contracts for "like it or lump it" amounts; and widows have not received funeral costs.
For Vicki Lester, the Government's promise to pay all her medical expenses came to naught. Ms Lester - who has had nine reconstructive and plastic surgery operations and recently self-funded a trip to Sydney to be operated on by a surgeon of her choice - had her expenses claim rejected. In June, acting premier Anna Bligh wrote to say it was because she rejected a government-selected Brisbane surgeon.
Burnett MP Rob Messenger, who exposed Dr Patel's wrongdoings, said lawyers had in some cases received more money than patients. He said a "high level" of frustration had been expressed to him by a number of victims. Mr Messenger said Estimates Committee figures released had found the average payout of the first 69 settlements was $21,500 - $1.4 million went to patients and $900,000 to lawyers.
Attorney-General Kerry Shine's spokesman said yesterday that 154 of the 379 claims had been resolved, but the details of payments would only be released at the end of the mediation process. The spokesman also said medical specialists involved with assessing patients had been selected by legal representatives for the patients from a panel of specialists submitted by the state. Howwever, he would not comment on specific patients.
Bundaberg Victims Patient Support Group chairman Ian Fleming said that if the mediation process were not improved, it should be shut down. "They have no intention of honouring promises to adequately compensate," he said.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Monday, November 06, 2006
Australia: Public hospital radiology meltdown
And without radiography and other scans, diagnosis of many serious conditions grinds to a halt
Radiation workers will consider mass resignations from Queensland hospitals at a crisis summit today. Queensland Health staff say their own research exposes an X-ray and cancer treatment crisis in the state's major hospitals. The workers say state-run hospitals are plagued by drastic staff shortages, millions of dollars of equipment sitting idle, extensive waiting lists and the forced closure of essential services. The summit will be told breast-screening services are close to collapse and cancer patients are still waiting up to nine weeks longer than the maximum standard for life-saving radiation treatment.
More than 100 radiographers, radiation therapists, sonographers and nuclear medicine technologists will attend the emergency meeting in Brisbane, where the research will be released. "The actual frontline workforce - the people who help diagnose and treat the patients - will tell it all. This has never happened before," a spokesman for the Medical Radiation Professionals Group said yesterday. "The outcome of the summit could very well result in the start of resignations across the Queensland Health medical radiation disciplines. "In some hospitals a handful of resignations would effectively shut down most medical imaging services."
The group, which represents 800 staff, claims Queensland Health has lost more than a third of its sonography workforce, affecting 90,000 ultrasound patients a year, including pregnant women. It says major hospitals will be forced to make severe cutbacks to CT, MRI and angiography services because of an average 30 per cent staff shortage. At some hospitals, staff numbers were down by more than 50 per cent, the group says.
The summit will consider a vote of no confidence in Queensland Health Minister Stephen Robertson. "The minister will need to take the crisis seriously or he may be left with a skeleton workforce next year - not that he is far from that now," the spokesman said. "Without medical radiation professionals there is no diagnosis or treatment for most patient conditions." Sonographer Craig Collins said about 80 per cent of all patients who walked through the front door of Queensland hospitals needed medical imaging. "If they go undiagnosed they'll never make it to a waiting list," Mr Collins said.
Mr Robertson is overseas with a group of senior doctors looking at children's hospitals and talking to recruitment agencies. A spokesman for the minister said he had recently met the radiation group
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
And without radiography and other scans, diagnosis of many serious conditions grinds to a halt
Radiation workers will consider mass resignations from Queensland hospitals at a crisis summit today. Queensland Health staff say their own research exposes an X-ray and cancer treatment crisis in the state's major hospitals. The workers say state-run hospitals are plagued by drastic staff shortages, millions of dollars of equipment sitting idle, extensive waiting lists and the forced closure of essential services. The summit will be told breast-screening services are close to collapse and cancer patients are still waiting up to nine weeks longer than the maximum standard for life-saving radiation treatment.
More than 100 radiographers, radiation therapists, sonographers and nuclear medicine technologists will attend the emergency meeting in Brisbane, where the research will be released. "The actual frontline workforce - the people who help diagnose and treat the patients - will tell it all. This has never happened before," a spokesman for the Medical Radiation Professionals Group said yesterday. "The outcome of the summit could very well result in the start of resignations across the Queensland Health medical radiation disciplines. "In some hospitals a handful of resignations would effectively shut down most medical imaging services."
The group, which represents 800 staff, claims Queensland Health has lost more than a third of its sonography workforce, affecting 90,000 ultrasound patients a year, including pregnant women. It says major hospitals will be forced to make severe cutbacks to CT, MRI and angiography services because of an average 30 per cent staff shortage. At some hospitals, staff numbers were down by more than 50 per cent, the group says.
The summit will consider a vote of no confidence in Queensland Health Minister Stephen Robertson. "The minister will need to take the crisis seriously or he may be left with a skeleton workforce next year - not that he is far from that now," the spokesman said. "Without medical radiation professionals there is no diagnosis or treatment for most patient conditions." Sonographer Craig Collins said about 80 per cent of all patients who walked through the front door of Queensland hospitals needed medical imaging. "If they go undiagnosed they'll never make it to a waiting list," Mr Collins said.
Mr Robertson is overseas with a group of senior doctors looking at children's hospitals and talking to recruitment agencies. A spokesman for the minister said he had recently met the radiation group
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Sunday, November 05, 2006
NHS staff give the lie to official waffle
It was a little like a parallel universe. While government officials have spent the day churning out ever more glorious statistics about the NHS, the staff who run the service have taken to the streets. From the bowels of the Department of Health's HQ, the familiar tales of falling waiting lists and increased staff numbers have been recounted. But outside on the streets of Westminster, doctors, nurses, cleaners and other support staff have been protesting at what they see as disastrous policies. Pensioners and health staff marched round Parliament Square waving placards saying "Save the NHS", while a double-decker bus circled the House of Commons drumming up support for the cause. A stone's throw away, at a packed Methodist Central Hall, a rally heard from union leaders and frontline staff about how Labour's policies were destroying the health service.
The buzz words became "creeping privatisation" and "fragmentation" as campaigners rallied against deficits, PFI hospital build schemes and privately-run NHS treatment centres. The day's protest has been organised by NHS Together, an alliance of 16 health unions which have come together to oppose the direction the NHS is heading in. Such unity among the health service's union movement is unheralded and begs the question: how can the views of government and health staff be so polarised?
Dr Jacky Davis, a consultant radiologist and member of the British Medical Association, said: "The problem is that the policies are being driven by ideological dogma. "There is no evidence that increasing the use of the private sector and scaling back on staff and hospitals will be beneficial. "No-one outside Number 10 believes it will, and so far they have refused to properly consult with us, so it is not surprising the government have not got staff on board." Listening to the campaigners, the problem seems to be that in many cases workers have had negative experiences of the government's policies.
Andrea Shields, a London paramedic, told the rally about a case recently involving a woman who went into labour prematurely at 29 weeks. Unable to locate a free neonatal bed in the London area after what she says have been cuts, her colleague was forced to drive to Portsmouth three hours away to get the care needed. "Not only did it put the mother and baby at risk, it took an ambulance out of the London service for six hours." And in a direct plea to ministers, she added: "All we want to do is to be able to do our jobs. Listen to us, the front-line staff, not the fancy management consultants."
But will the day of protest make any difference? Union officials and health workers also spent the day lobbying MPs - by mid-afternoon the queue outside the House of Commons was snaking down Millbank. Ruth Levin, a London regional officer for Unison, met with her local Labour MP. She said: "He did seem sympathetic to our concerns, particularly over the private sector, but it really requires a whole sea-change in the way politicians are handling the NHS." However, she acknowledged campaigners were facing a challenge as many MPs speak out sympathetically when their local hospital feels the pinch, only to continue voting for the government's policies inside the Palace of Westminster.
As for the government, it seems there will be no slow-down. As protesters took to the streets, ministers were touring the television and radio studios saying there was no turning back. As Health Minister Andy Burnham put it: "Actually, rather than putting the NHS under any threat, this is the NHS poised to make one of its biggest leaps forward in its history."
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
It was a little like a parallel universe. While government officials have spent the day churning out ever more glorious statistics about the NHS, the staff who run the service have taken to the streets. From the bowels of the Department of Health's HQ, the familiar tales of falling waiting lists and increased staff numbers have been recounted. But outside on the streets of Westminster, doctors, nurses, cleaners and other support staff have been protesting at what they see as disastrous policies. Pensioners and health staff marched round Parliament Square waving placards saying "Save the NHS", while a double-decker bus circled the House of Commons drumming up support for the cause. A stone's throw away, at a packed Methodist Central Hall, a rally heard from union leaders and frontline staff about how Labour's policies were destroying the health service.
The buzz words became "creeping privatisation" and "fragmentation" as campaigners rallied against deficits, PFI hospital build schemes and privately-run NHS treatment centres. The day's protest has been organised by NHS Together, an alliance of 16 health unions which have come together to oppose the direction the NHS is heading in. Such unity among the health service's union movement is unheralded and begs the question: how can the views of government and health staff be so polarised?
Dr Jacky Davis, a consultant radiologist and member of the British Medical Association, said: "The problem is that the policies are being driven by ideological dogma. "There is no evidence that increasing the use of the private sector and scaling back on staff and hospitals will be beneficial. "No-one outside Number 10 believes it will, and so far they have refused to properly consult with us, so it is not surprising the government have not got staff on board." Listening to the campaigners, the problem seems to be that in many cases workers have had negative experiences of the government's policies.
Andrea Shields, a London paramedic, told the rally about a case recently involving a woman who went into labour prematurely at 29 weeks. Unable to locate a free neonatal bed in the London area after what she says have been cuts, her colleague was forced to drive to Portsmouth three hours away to get the care needed. "Not only did it put the mother and baby at risk, it took an ambulance out of the London service for six hours." And in a direct plea to ministers, she added: "All we want to do is to be able to do our jobs. Listen to us, the front-line staff, not the fancy management consultants."
But will the day of protest make any difference? Union officials and health workers also spent the day lobbying MPs - by mid-afternoon the queue outside the House of Commons was snaking down Millbank. Ruth Levin, a London regional officer for Unison, met with her local Labour MP. She said: "He did seem sympathetic to our concerns, particularly over the private sector, but it really requires a whole sea-change in the way politicians are handling the NHS." However, she acknowledged campaigners were facing a challenge as many MPs speak out sympathetically when their local hospital feels the pinch, only to continue voting for the government's policies inside the Palace of Westminster.
As for the government, it seems there will be no slow-down. As protesters took to the streets, ministers were touring the television and radio studios saying there was no turning back. As Health Minister Andy Burnham put it: "Actually, rather than putting the NHS under any threat, this is the NHS poised to make one of its biggest leaps forward in its history."
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Saturday, November 04, 2006
NHS UNSAFE
Patient safety in hospitals, doctors' surgeries and clinics needs to be improved in the NHS and independent sectors, according to the Government's healthcare watchdog. Most patients received safe care, but standards were inconsistent across England and Wales, with vague and widely varying estimates on numbers of avoidable deaths and injuries, the Healthcare Commission said. Sir Ian Kennedy, the commission's chairman, spoke as its annual State of Healthcare report was presented to Parliament. He said: "The NHS needs to take safety more seriously. It is frustrating that in 2006 we do not have a clearer idea of how many people die or are harmed in hospitals. We should all be troubled when the National Audit Office states that `estimates of death as a result of patient safety incidents range from 840 to 34,000, but in reality the NHS simply does not know'. "I recognise that it is not easy to get this information and that all major countries struggle with it. But without that knowledge, and the reasons behind it, improvement cannot take place."
The report marks the first publication of an overview of standards in the independent sector in England, which includes private and voluntary providers. It discloses that one in ten NHS trusts could not confirm that it fully met core standards on safety and one in ten providers in the independent sector was ordered to improve its management of risks last year.
More than a fifth of the complaints the commission handles relate to safety, which includes infection control, drug administration, clinical negligence, accidents and general health and safety legislation.
One fifth of trusts told the Commission that they could not ensure that all their staff had attended compulsory health and safety training and 13 per cent could not be sure that medical devices were properly decontaminated.
Sir Ian said that failings could also involve things such as GPs not keeping records properly or the misreading of tests. "There is clearly room for improvement in compliance with standards on safety," he added. "And this goes for the independent sector as well as the NHS." About 50 per cent of independent providers met all 32 minimum standards, but one in ten failed five or more, broadly in line with NHS organisations.
Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary, said yesterday: "It is a shame that this willingness to improve patient safety is not shared by the Department of Health. In December 2003 the Chief Medical Officer ordered an audit of deaths caused by hospitalacquired infections. We are still waiting for it to be published."
A spokeswoman from the National Patient Safety Agency said that an exact figure had proved difficult to obtain. "There are several disputed extrapolations of deaths due to patient safety problems using different data sources and methods. The most widely quoted figure is 40,000 deaths per year in England. However, in our Patient Safety Observatory report last year we estimated that each year in NHS acute hospitals in England there are approximately 840 reported deaths resulting from patient safety incidents. This is probably an underestimate, but not by 39,000."
A Department of Health spokesman said: "As in any modern health service, mistakes and unforeseen incidents can and will happen. Any mistake is one too many but similar rates of patient safety incidents occur worldwide."
Source
Hospital kitchen hygiene 'poor' in NHS
Shocking hygiene standards have been found in some UK hospital kitchens, a consumer group reports. Which? reviewed hygiene inspection reports for 50 hospitals and found evidence of cockroaches, mice and mouldy cooking equipment. An online survey by the organisation also revealed 29% of NHS patients still felt hungry after their meals. But the Department of Health said hospital food had improved in the last few years.
Which? said it's trawl of three years' worth of hygiene reports revealed problems such as dirty equipment, cockroach infestations, lack of soap or hot water, with poor refrigeration also cropping up regularly.
Other hospitals used food fridges to store medical supplies, had out-of-date foods and failings in food safety procedures, Which? added. But it said not all hospital catering facilities were dirty and some were highlighted for their cleanliness.
In a separate online survey of 833 hospital patients, the consumer group also found some patients were going hungry. Twenty-nine percent of NHS patients questioned said they felt hungry after their hospital meal compared with 4% of private patients. Neil Fowler, editor of Which?, said: "Hospital food hasn't got the best of reputations but you'd expect the kitchens to be clean at the very least. Unfortunately, we've found this isn't always the case. "Our survey shows a low level of satisfaction with hospital food in NHS hospitals. The government paints a rosy picture but the reality is very different, with many patients left with a nasty taste in their mouths."
A Department of Health spokesperson said: "Last month the independent Healthcare Commission found that nearly all trusts (over 96%) were meeting the core standards on hospital food. "Last year, the independent Patient Environment Action Teams found that 90% of hospitals were rated good or excellent for food standards compared with 17% in 2002. "There are some excellent menus around but we recognise that more needs to be done. The government has made a commitment to establish nutritional standards for the NHS and this work is now under way."
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Patient safety in hospitals, doctors' surgeries and clinics needs to be improved in the NHS and independent sectors, according to the Government's healthcare watchdog. Most patients received safe care, but standards were inconsistent across England and Wales, with vague and widely varying estimates on numbers of avoidable deaths and injuries, the Healthcare Commission said. Sir Ian Kennedy, the commission's chairman, spoke as its annual State of Healthcare report was presented to Parliament. He said: "The NHS needs to take safety more seriously. It is frustrating that in 2006 we do not have a clearer idea of how many people die or are harmed in hospitals. We should all be troubled when the National Audit Office states that `estimates of death as a result of patient safety incidents range from 840 to 34,000, but in reality the NHS simply does not know'. "I recognise that it is not easy to get this information and that all major countries struggle with it. But without that knowledge, and the reasons behind it, improvement cannot take place."
The report marks the first publication of an overview of standards in the independent sector in England, which includes private and voluntary providers. It discloses that one in ten NHS trusts could not confirm that it fully met core standards on safety and one in ten providers in the independent sector was ordered to improve its management of risks last year.
More than a fifth of the complaints the commission handles relate to safety, which includes infection control, drug administration, clinical negligence, accidents and general health and safety legislation.
One fifth of trusts told the Commission that they could not ensure that all their staff had attended compulsory health and safety training and 13 per cent could not be sure that medical devices were properly decontaminated.
Sir Ian said that failings could also involve things such as GPs not keeping records properly or the misreading of tests. "There is clearly room for improvement in compliance with standards on safety," he added. "And this goes for the independent sector as well as the NHS." About 50 per cent of independent providers met all 32 minimum standards, but one in ten failed five or more, broadly in line with NHS organisations.
Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary, said yesterday: "It is a shame that this willingness to improve patient safety is not shared by the Department of Health. In December 2003 the Chief Medical Officer ordered an audit of deaths caused by hospitalacquired infections. We are still waiting for it to be published."
A spokeswoman from the National Patient Safety Agency said that an exact figure had proved difficult to obtain. "There are several disputed extrapolations of deaths due to patient safety problems using different data sources and methods. The most widely quoted figure is 40,000 deaths per year in England. However, in our Patient Safety Observatory report last year we estimated that each year in NHS acute hospitals in England there are approximately 840 reported deaths resulting from patient safety incidents. This is probably an underestimate, but not by 39,000."
A Department of Health spokesman said: "As in any modern health service, mistakes and unforeseen incidents can and will happen. Any mistake is one too many but similar rates of patient safety incidents occur worldwide."
Source
Hospital kitchen hygiene 'poor' in NHS
Shocking hygiene standards have been found in some UK hospital kitchens, a consumer group reports. Which? reviewed hygiene inspection reports for 50 hospitals and found evidence of cockroaches, mice and mouldy cooking equipment. An online survey by the organisation also revealed 29% of NHS patients still felt hungry after their meals. But the Department of Health said hospital food had improved in the last few years.
Which? said it's trawl of three years' worth of hygiene reports revealed problems such as dirty equipment, cockroach infestations, lack of soap or hot water, with poor refrigeration also cropping up regularly.
Other hospitals used food fridges to store medical supplies, had out-of-date foods and failings in food safety procedures, Which? added. But it said not all hospital catering facilities were dirty and some were highlighted for their cleanliness.
In a separate online survey of 833 hospital patients, the consumer group also found some patients were going hungry. Twenty-nine percent of NHS patients questioned said they felt hungry after their hospital meal compared with 4% of private patients. Neil Fowler, editor of Which?, said: "Hospital food hasn't got the best of reputations but you'd expect the kitchens to be clean at the very least. Unfortunately, we've found this isn't always the case. "Our survey shows a low level of satisfaction with hospital food in NHS hospitals. The government paints a rosy picture but the reality is very different, with many patients left with a nasty taste in their mouths."
A Department of Health spokesperson said: "Last month the independent Healthcare Commission found that nearly all trusts (over 96%) were meeting the core standards on hospital food. "Last year, the independent Patient Environment Action Teams found that 90% of hospitals were rated good or excellent for food standards compared with 17% in 2002. "There are some excellent menus around but we recognise that more needs to be done. The government has made a commitment to establish nutritional standards for the NHS and this work is now under way."
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Friday, November 03, 2006
Amazing: Nowhere to have a baby
Government health services in the Australian State of Victoria on display
This month, Clare Hooton will give birth to her fourth child -- but she has no idea where it will be born. Nearby Alexandra Hospital was named one of the state's three best rural hospitals at the Victorian Public Healthcare Awards last month. Twelve days earlier, it closed its doors to birthing mothers, citing a chronic shortage of specialist staff.
At 39 and having suffered one miscarriage, Ms Hooton said the closure had left her feeling frightened and isolated. "When I moved from Melbourne (six years ago), I thought we're relatively close to services, but . . . it's beginning to feel more and more like the Outback," she said.
Fifteen years ago, Alexandra Hospital had five GPs who could deliver babies and three GPs qualified to administer anaesthetics. A month ago it had just one GP available to deliver babies, a gynaecologist who visited once a month, no anaesthetic service and too few midwives to fill a daily roster. The decline has seen births fall to just 10-12 a year. "Between 135 and 150 women have babies in the area each year, so it could be viable if they had the services," Ms Hooton said. She said it was ironic services were cut at the same time families were being encouraged to move to rural Victoria.
Ms Hooton had decided to move in with her parents' in Glen Waverley [Melbourne] and give birth at nearby Monash Medical Centre, but was told it only took risky pregnancies. "My doctor is trying to see if he can work out of Mansfield Hospital," Ms Hooten said.
Source
Surgery waiting list blows out
Government health services in the Australian State of Queensland on display
The number of Queenslanders waiting longer than recommended for urgent surgery has blown out over the past quarter, new figures show.
Queensland Health Minister Stephen Robertson said today that shortages in medical specialists and growing demand for services were putting pressure on the state's hospitals. Mr Robertson told parliament that while hospitals were treating more of the most urgent cases, the number of patients having long waits for surgery had risen over the quarter. He said 360 category 1 patients and 2942 category 2 patients had long waits - up 1 per cent and 1.5 per cent, respectively, over the quarter.
But the state's public hospitals had set a record for total activity, treating more than 467,000 patients over the past three months. "What this means is that our public hospitals are busier than ever and treating more Queenslanders than ever before," Mr Robertson said. The minister said regional hospitals' performance had improved, with Bundaberg Hospital lifting its elective surgery rate by 53 per cent over the quarter.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Government health services in the Australian State of Victoria on display
This month, Clare Hooton will give birth to her fourth child -- but she has no idea where it will be born. Nearby Alexandra Hospital was named one of the state's three best rural hospitals at the Victorian Public Healthcare Awards last month. Twelve days earlier, it closed its doors to birthing mothers, citing a chronic shortage of specialist staff.
At 39 and having suffered one miscarriage, Ms Hooton said the closure had left her feeling frightened and isolated. "When I moved from Melbourne (six years ago), I thought we're relatively close to services, but . . . it's beginning to feel more and more like the Outback," she said.
Fifteen years ago, Alexandra Hospital had five GPs who could deliver babies and three GPs qualified to administer anaesthetics. A month ago it had just one GP available to deliver babies, a gynaecologist who visited once a month, no anaesthetic service and too few midwives to fill a daily roster. The decline has seen births fall to just 10-12 a year. "Between 135 and 150 women have babies in the area each year, so it could be viable if they had the services," Ms Hooton said. She said it was ironic services were cut at the same time families were being encouraged to move to rural Victoria.
Ms Hooton had decided to move in with her parents' in Glen Waverley [Melbourne] and give birth at nearby Monash Medical Centre, but was told it only took risky pregnancies. "My doctor is trying to see if he can work out of Mansfield Hospital," Ms Hooten said.
Source
Surgery waiting list blows out
Government health services in the Australian State of Queensland on display
The number of Queenslanders waiting longer than recommended for urgent surgery has blown out over the past quarter, new figures show.
Queensland Health Minister Stephen Robertson said today that shortages in medical specialists and growing demand for services were putting pressure on the state's hospitals. Mr Robertson told parliament that while hospitals were treating more of the most urgent cases, the number of patients having long waits for surgery had risen over the quarter. He said 360 category 1 patients and 2942 category 2 patients had long waits - up 1 per cent and 1.5 per cent, respectively, over the quarter.
But the state's public hospitals had set a record for total activity, treating more than 467,000 patients over the past three months. "What this means is that our public hospitals are busier than ever and treating more Queenslanders than ever before," Mr Robertson said. The minister said regional hospitals' performance had improved, with Bundaberg Hospital lifting its elective surgery rate by 53 per cent over the quarter.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Thursday, November 02, 2006
CALIFORNIA: GOVERNMENT HEALTH INSURANCE IS ONLY FOR THE VERY PATIENT
You really can die waiting
Marketing consultant Ivanna Zelaya did not have health insurance in August 2005 when she fell asleep at the wheel of her car and plunged off a Northern California freeway. Zelaya, of San Jose, spent three weeks in a coma. After she awoke, she spent months more at Stanford Medical Center recovering from a lacerated liver and brain injuries.
Zelaya qualified for Medi-Cal, the state's health coverage for the needy and disabled, because her injuries impaired her ability to work. But it took 10 months for the state to enroll her, Zelaya said. As a result, she still did not have coverage by the time she left the hospital and was unable to get follow-up neurological tests, rehabilitation or pain treatment.
Zelaya is the lead plaintiff in a recent lawsuit charging that the state is causing needless suffering and even death among thousands of people with disabilities illegally forced to wait months for medical care due to a staffing shortage in a state office. State law says it should take no more than 90 days to sign up qualifying applicants with disabilities for Medi-Cal. But, according to the Department of Social Services, the process is now taking an average of 145 days -- and as in Zelaya's case, sometimes even longer.
People with disabilities must first get approval from a state office in the Department of Social Services that determines whether they are really impaired. That office has a backlog of about 12,000 Medi-Cal applications, the department said. "There's no practice of catching people who are critically ill or near death and getting them enrolled quickly, triaged quickly or effectively," said Kimberly Lewis of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, one of the attorneys who filed the case this month in San Francisco Superior Court. The suit asks the court to order the state to end the delays and take immediate action in cases where people with urgent health needs have been waiting longer than three months for approval. The groups filing the lawsuit reviewed more than 2,000 Medi-Cal disability applications from 2005 and found that none of them was approved within the 90-day time limit.
Shirley Washington, a spokeswoman for the Department of Social Services, said the department could not comment on pending litigation. The backlog and the wait were even worse last year, when close to 16,000 people with disabilities were waiting for their Medi-Cal applications to be approved and the state was taking an average of 310 days to process each file, the Department of Social Services said. Due to state budget cuts several years ago, staffing in the Disability and Adult Programs office, which handles the applications, has been cut. The state has hired an additional 35 workers over the past two years, which has helped cut the backlog and the wait time, Washington said.
But the suit says that is still too slow, especially when the consequences can be fatal. "Our concerns are, you have a 90-day deadline by law. You have a 12,000- or 13,000-person backlog, and your goal is to try to reduce that the next couple of years?" Lewis said. "That's not good enough."
One cancer patient, unable to pay for chemotherapy, died without treatment while waiting for Medi-Cal, the suit says. Eva Baez, 58, of Livermore filed an application for Medi-Cal in January after learning she had a tumor in her liver. In March, doctors discovered a second tumor and urged her to get chemotherapy immediately. But Baez already owed $100,000 in hospital fees, so she did not begin treatment -- even though she was unable to eat or move around and was in constant pain, the suit says. State workers finally approved Baez for Medi-Cal in June, but by then it was too late. She died a few weeks later, according to the suit.
In Zelaya's case, the wait prevented her from getting rehabilitation services, pain treatment and neurological tests after she was discharged from the hospital, according to the lawsuit. When she was readmitted to Stanford Medical Center with infections several times, the hospital's financial services representatives would call her hospital room, telling her they might have to transfer her to a public hospital because she did not have insurance, she said. "I don't mind paying ... what I owe," Zelaya said. "But they were sending me to collections, and I wasn't working, I was on disability, and I couldn't even talk."
With help from an attorney, Zelaya finally got approved for Medi-Cal in June -- almost a year after her accident and seven months after the legal time limit. Her Medi-Cal was backdated, and it retroactively covered some, but not all, of her hospital costs. By that time, she said, she had already forgone medical care that she needed, such as rehabilitation services. She got stronger on her own by following exercise programs on television. "I couldn't have physical therapy," she said. "I couldn't walk when I first came out of my coma. I couldn't talk too well. ... I can talk better now. I did this all on my own."
Zelaya's struggles with Medi-Cal didn't end after she finally was enrolled. The state requires people with disabilities to recertify annually that they are still impaired and therefore still eligible for coverage. Soon after she obtained coverage, Zelaya got a thick letter in the mail. "Two weeks after they approved me, they sent me a package of 100 pages telling me my Medi-Cal was going to expire because it's been a year since I've had it," she said.
Source
Public hospitals frequently evoke anger
Glided over below is the aggressive response evoked from patients and their relatives after they have not been seen to even after many hours of waiting. Only the phrase "and their families" gives the game away
Public hospital staff have been forced to call for help to deal with aggressive and violent patients almost 4500 times in the past year. State Government figures show there were 4427 "Code Black" calls for emergency response teams across the state's public hospitals in 2005-06. This was 201 more than in 2004-05.
Responding to the figures, Health Minister John Hill will launch a public appeal for South Australians to treat doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers with respect. Code Black is a staff call for help when a patient's actions threaten their safety or that of others. A team, including a doctor, nurse and security guard, responds to each call. Mr Hill said the Health Department was setting up a taskforce to study hospital violence and develop strategies to deal with patients whose conditions caused dangerous behaviour. He said the number of Code Blacks represented less than 0.3 per cent of the total patient contacts, and that most inappropriate behaviour was caused by illness and not deliberate aggression towards staff. This included patients affected by drugs or alcohol, older patients with dementia, patients with organic brain syndrome and patients confused or upset after surgery.
While some incidents related to violence, Code Blacks were often called to prevent an incident which could cause injury from occurring or escalating.... Mr Hill said he was determined to make hospitals safe for staff and patients and their families. "Our health professionals are well regarded in the community, but sometimes we forget to say 'thanks' for a job well done," he said. "And when families and friends are anxious about the health of their loved ones, sometimes there are harsh words directed to the well-meaning nurses, doctors or volunteers who are nearby. "I want people to think about their actions towards health workers in our public hospitals, medical clinics and surgeries, and remember to treat them respectfully. "Working in hospitals is a vocation which asks for a very high level of commitment and care. These people are very special and valued." Mr Hill said incidents where a member of the public or a patient was deliberately aggressive to a health worker were uncommon, but acknowledged they happened.
He urged family members "who are aware that their loved ones sometimes react with anxiety or aggression in a hospital setting to let the nurses and doctors know as soon as they arrive at a medical facility or hospital". "If staff are made aware of the potential for sudden changes in a patient's behaviour, they may be better prepared and there may be less potential for injury to the patient, staff or family." The taskforce would include consultation with the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Nursing Federation. It would also look at strategies to address an ageing population and increased incidences of mental illness.
Australian Medical Association state president Dr Chris Cain said doctors and nurses were sometimes confronted with difficult situations and that Code Black was "one way to ensure these problems are dealt with through a system that indicates the nature of the problem and response required". RAH enrolled nurse Tammy Bornhoeft, 29, has been pinched and scratched by patients in her care and said staff in the general medical ward referred to a Code Black response team at least once a week. "I have nearly been punched out and it can feel very threatening," she said. "I deal with many patients with dementia and alcohol withdrawal and they can become aggressive and kick, verbally abuse you . . ."
Australian Nursing Federation state branch secretary Lee Thomas said nurses and doctors needed increased protection "against a range of different behaviours from patients and their families". "Aggressive behaviour is blamed on alcohol, drugs, grief and illness," she said.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
You really can die waiting
Marketing consultant Ivanna Zelaya did not have health insurance in August 2005 when she fell asleep at the wheel of her car and plunged off a Northern California freeway. Zelaya, of San Jose, spent three weeks in a coma. After she awoke, she spent months more at Stanford Medical Center recovering from a lacerated liver and brain injuries.
Zelaya qualified for Medi-Cal, the state's health coverage for the needy and disabled, because her injuries impaired her ability to work. But it took 10 months for the state to enroll her, Zelaya said. As a result, she still did not have coverage by the time she left the hospital and was unable to get follow-up neurological tests, rehabilitation or pain treatment.
Zelaya is the lead plaintiff in a recent lawsuit charging that the state is causing needless suffering and even death among thousands of people with disabilities illegally forced to wait months for medical care due to a staffing shortage in a state office. State law says it should take no more than 90 days to sign up qualifying applicants with disabilities for Medi-Cal. But, according to the Department of Social Services, the process is now taking an average of 145 days -- and as in Zelaya's case, sometimes even longer.
People with disabilities must first get approval from a state office in the Department of Social Services that determines whether they are really impaired. That office has a backlog of about 12,000 Medi-Cal applications, the department said. "There's no practice of catching people who are critically ill or near death and getting them enrolled quickly, triaged quickly or effectively," said Kimberly Lewis of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, one of the attorneys who filed the case this month in San Francisco Superior Court. The suit asks the court to order the state to end the delays and take immediate action in cases where people with urgent health needs have been waiting longer than three months for approval. The groups filing the lawsuit reviewed more than 2,000 Medi-Cal disability applications from 2005 and found that none of them was approved within the 90-day time limit.
Shirley Washington, a spokeswoman for the Department of Social Services, said the department could not comment on pending litigation. The backlog and the wait were even worse last year, when close to 16,000 people with disabilities were waiting for their Medi-Cal applications to be approved and the state was taking an average of 310 days to process each file, the Department of Social Services said. Due to state budget cuts several years ago, staffing in the Disability and Adult Programs office, which handles the applications, has been cut. The state has hired an additional 35 workers over the past two years, which has helped cut the backlog and the wait time, Washington said.
But the suit says that is still too slow, especially when the consequences can be fatal. "Our concerns are, you have a 90-day deadline by law. You have a 12,000- or 13,000-person backlog, and your goal is to try to reduce that the next couple of years?" Lewis said. "That's not good enough."
One cancer patient, unable to pay for chemotherapy, died without treatment while waiting for Medi-Cal, the suit says. Eva Baez, 58, of Livermore filed an application for Medi-Cal in January after learning she had a tumor in her liver. In March, doctors discovered a second tumor and urged her to get chemotherapy immediately. But Baez already owed $100,000 in hospital fees, so she did not begin treatment -- even though she was unable to eat or move around and was in constant pain, the suit says. State workers finally approved Baez for Medi-Cal in June, but by then it was too late. She died a few weeks later, according to the suit.
In Zelaya's case, the wait prevented her from getting rehabilitation services, pain treatment and neurological tests after she was discharged from the hospital, according to the lawsuit. When she was readmitted to Stanford Medical Center with infections several times, the hospital's financial services representatives would call her hospital room, telling her they might have to transfer her to a public hospital because she did not have insurance, she said. "I don't mind paying ... what I owe," Zelaya said. "But they were sending me to collections, and I wasn't working, I was on disability, and I couldn't even talk."
With help from an attorney, Zelaya finally got approved for Medi-Cal in June -- almost a year after her accident and seven months after the legal time limit. Her Medi-Cal was backdated, and it retroactively covered some, but not all, of her hospital costs. By that time, she said, she had already forgone medical care that she needed, such as rehabilitation services. She got stronger on her own by following exercise programs on television. "I couldn't have physical therapy," she said. "I couldn't walk when I first came out of my coma. I couldn't talk too well. ... I can talk better now. I did this all on my own."
Zelaya's struggles with Medi-Cal didn't end after she finally was enrolled. The state requires people with disabilities to recertify annually that they are still impaired and therefore still eligible for coverage. Soon after she obtained coverage, Zelaya got a thick letter in the mail. "Two weeks after they approved me, they sent me a package of 100 pages telling me my Medi-Cal was going to expire because it's been a year since I've had it," she said.
Source
Public hospitals frequently evoke anger
Glided over below is the aggressive response evoked from patients and their relatives after they have not been seen to even after many hours of waiting. Only the phrase "and their families" gives the game away
Public hospital staff have been forced to call for help to deal with aggressive and violent patients almost 4500 times in the past year. State Government figures show there were 4427 "Code Black" calls for emergency response teams across the state's public hospitals in 2005-06. This was 201 more than in 2004-05.
Responding to the figures, Health Minister John Hill will launch a public appeal for South Australians to treat doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers with respect. Code Black is a staff call for help when a patient's actions threaten their safety or that of others. A team, including a doctor, nurse and security guard, responds to each call. Mr Hill said the Health Department was setting up a taskforce to study hospital violence and develop strategies to deal with patients whose conditions caused dangerous behaviour. He said the number of Code Blacks represented less than 0.3 per cent of the total patient contacts, and that most inappropriate behaviour was caused by illness and not deliberate aggression towards staff. This included patients affected by drugs or alcohol, older patients with dementia, patients with organic brain syndrome and patients confused or upset after surgery.
While some incidents related to violence, Code Blacks were often called to prevent an incident which could cause injury from occurring or escalating.... Mr Hill said he was determined to make hospitals safe for staff and patients and their families. "Our health professionals are well regarded in the community, but sometimes we forget to say 'thanks' for a job well done," he said. "And when families and friends are anxious about the health of their loved ones, sometimes there are harsh words directed to the well-meaning nurses, doctors or volunteers who are nearby. "I want people to think about their actions towards health workers in our public hospitals, medical clinics and surgeries, and remember to treat them respectfully. "Working in hospitals is a vocation which asks for a very high level of commitment and care. These people are very special and valued." Mr Hill said incidents where a member of the public or a patient was deliberately aggressive to a health worker were uncommon, but acknowledged they happened.
He urged family members "who are aware that their loved ones sometimes react with anxiety or aggression in a hospital setting to let the nurses and doctors know as soon as they arrive at a medical facility or hospital". "If staff are made aware of the potential for sudden changes in a patient's behaviour, they may be better prepared and there may be less potential for injury to the patient, staff or family." The taskforce would include consultation with the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Nursing Federation. It would also look at strategies to address an ageing population and increased incidences of mental illness.
Australian Medical Association state president Dr Chris Cain said doctors and nurses were sometimes confronted with difficult situations and that Code Black was "one way to ensure these problems are dealt with through a system that indicates the nature of the problem and response required". RAH enrolled nurse Tammy Bornhoeft, 29, has been pinched and scratched by patients in her care and said staff in the general medical ward referred to a Code Black response team at least once a week. "I have nearly been punched out and it can feel very threatening," she said. "I deal with many patients with dementia and alcohol withdrawal and they can become aggressive and kick, verbally abuse you . . ."
Australian Nursing Federation state branch secretary Lee Thomas said nurses and doctors needed increased protection "against a range of different behaviours from patients and their families". "Aggressive behaviour is blamed on alcohol, drugs, grief and illness," she said.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
NHS JOB LOSSES CONTINUE
A total of 903 NHS staff have been made redundant in the last six months due to the financial crisis in the service, ministers admitted today. Statistics show that among the compulsory job losses, 167 were clinical staff such as doctors, nurses and therapists. The remainder were managers and administrators.
The Department of Health released the figures to prove that Tory and union estimates of 20,000 job losses were too high. Health minister Andy Burnham demanded that Conservative leader David Cameron apologise for his "grossly exaggerated claims". The Tory figures included measures such as not filling vacancies and using fewer agency staff.
Last week it emerged that 95 doctors, nurses, and administration staff at Kingston Hospital could be given their redundancy notices two weeks before Christmas. Tony Blair predicted that a "few hundred" NHS workers would lose their jobs as a result of financial pressures and changes to the way healthcare is delivered.
An independent watchdog was due to report today to Parliament on the standards of healthcare in the NHS. The Healthcare Commission's annual report is based on the experiences of patients. It covers a period in which many trusts have struggled with deficits which have forced cutbacks.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
A total of 903 NHS staff have been made redundant in the last six months due to the financial crisis in the service, ministers admitted today. Statistics show that among the compulsory job losses, 167 were clinical staff such as doctors, nurses and therapists. The remainder were managers and administrators.
The Department of Health released the figures to prove that Tory and union estimates of 20,000 job losses were too high. Health minister Andy Burnham demanded that Conservative leader David Cameron apologise for his "grossly exaggerated claims". The Tory figures included measures such as not filling vacancies and using fewer agency staff.
Last week it emerged that 95 doctors, nurses, and administration staff at Kingston Hospital could be given their redundancy notices two weeks before Christmas. Tony Blair predicted that a "few hundred" NHS workers would lose their jobs as a result of financial pressures and changes to the way healthcare is delivered.
An independent watchdog was due to report today to Parliament on the standards of healthcare in the NHS. The Healthcare Commission's annual report is based on the experiences of patients. It covers a period in which many trusts have struggled with deficits which have forced cutbacks.
Source
***************************
For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?
Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.
***************************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
