Brits- Can you tell us if your free healthcare would cover an MRI?

no duh wrote:

This isn't directly related to your MRI question, but does involve advanced x-ray technology; mammography. I spoke with a woman from Northern Ireland Saturday night and she told me that she was recovering from a double mastectomy 6 months ago. She had 2 different types of cancer in each breast and told me that had she been in the UK, she'd be dead right now. She is cancer free so far and said that if she was still there, she wouldn't have even had a mammography yet because she would still be on the waiting list.

I don't understand this at all.

Did she find a lump in her breast? If so, she would have seen her GP and her GP would have referred her for a mammogram (probably within a few days.) There is no waiting list for mammograms as such, people get them when they need them.

Is she catholic by any chance?

This thread blows my mind. In my running career I've needed 4 MRIs and 2 CT scans. I've never had to wait more than a week, and that was for a specialized procedure (3T field MR-A). Usually I got in within two DAYS. Granted I pay up the @$$ for health insurance, even when I'm healthy, but I don't have to pay a cent over my deductible at year's end. I could not imagine having to wait weeks or months for an MRI or specialist appointment. As many problems as American healthcare has, I am extremely pleased with its speed. I can get in to see a good sports orthopedist in less than two weeks and get any needed treatments and tests fairly rapidly.

I wonder if the sluggish pace of 'socialized' medicine in the UK has anything to do with the downturn in athletics performance? It wouldn't shock me.

In the end, that extra 6% of GDP just might be worth it for a guy like me who would like to get in to see a doctor on short notice. But really the high cost of healthcare is coming chiefly from two sources: 1) chronic illness and 2) end-of-life care.

Hmm. I work for a state university in the US and pay substantial contributions into my medical benefit program every month. Virtually none of the expenses related to injuries are covered. I would pay most of the costs of an MRI out of pocket. Our health care system is out of control, mainly due to chronic illness and end of life care, as just noted, but also due to insane levels of over-medication and over-treatment of minor things.

My daughter had foot surgery and the itemized bill was a true eye opener. $20 for an ice bag, $10 for a bandage, etc... everything marked up %1000 or more.

hjiuh877hn wrote:But really the high cost of healthcare is coming chiefly from two sources: 1) chronic illness and 2) end-of-life care.

specifically it is coming from effectiveness of ACE-i & ARBs & statins reducing bp/lipids & all cause morbidity/mortality from MI/CVA

these drugs have probably added 5y to life expectancy

& no, any "sluggishness" in uk healthcare won't affect performance

immediate scans & intense intervention : arthroscopics/ physio/etc don't always improve performance

most minor injuries work best with rest +/- naproxen ( or a local shot of depo-medrone - you don't wait 2/52 for that )

envewi wrote:

Hmm. I work for a state university in the US and pay substantial contributions into my medical benefit program every month. Virtually none of the expenses related to injuries are covered. I would pay most of the costs of an MRI out of pocket. Our health care system is out of control, mainly due to chronic illness and end of life care, as just noted, but also due to insane levels of over-medication and over-treatment of minor things.

My daughter had foot surgery and the itemized bill was a true eye opener. $20 for an ice bag, $10 for a bandage, etc... everything marked up %1000 or more.

One thing I forgot to mention is that the reason they get away with these outrageous markups is that the patient is not the consumer. BECAUSE my insurance pays for an MRI, the imaging clinic can charge whatever they want for it. $2000, $3000, who cares when you're not paying?

Also I'm curious why your insurance doesn't cover MRIs and things. If a doctor orders it, what gives?

Health care here in the UK is not free, we pay for it through taxes.

I had an MRI because a sport injury. It took 6 months of waiting, and longer than that to persuade the GP it was worthed.

The general view of GPs is that if it does not affect your ability to work, walk, and have an otherwise "normal" life than they would not do it.

I also had Achille tendon operation, sport injury. The GP did not want to "waste" public money for my sport health care, I had to do it privately.

In fact, I think it would be fair if it wasn't that drug and alcohol addicted, obese, and many others, they do receive health care funded by our tax money.

'As many problems as American healthcare has, I am extremely pleased with its speed. I can get in to see a good sports orthopedist in less than two weeks and get any needed treatments and tests fairly rapidly.

I wonder if the sluggish pace of 'socialized' medicine in the UK has anything to do with the downturn in athletics performance? It wouldn't shock me. '

Well the same system, was in place during the Coe/Ovett years

I can get to see my physio in 2 days if I pay and everyone in the UK has the option to go with BUPA and 'jump the queue' and a lot of firms give this as a benefit. However if a child has the misfortune to have poor parents they will get properly treated unlike in the States. You don't pay for high school so the US also has to some extent a socialised system

By the way the cold war is over. You are safe from the commies now!

'also had Achille tendon operation, sport injury. The GP did not want to "waste" public money for my sport health care, I had to do it privately.'

Change doctor

ventolin^3 wrote:

you can get things done pretty fast

i've ordered 3 MRIs & a CT in past 1/52

i don't understand how you're using numbers.

I'm with you-we had 5 MRI's in my family last year and only paid $100 per, but the billed prices were around $1000 and list was $1500. The woman from N. Ireland told me that the GP's end up paying a portion of the specialist fees, like a penalty, but are also rewarded for keeping claims down.

As for cost drivers of healthcare, add technology into that equation and pharma. Remember, AIDs & HIV patients died within 2-5 years 20 years ago and today they live nearly full lives, but at $50,000+ a year in meds. Remember how cholesterol was supposed to be under 220 10 years ago? Today that threshold is moving to 180 and the drugs are $100 month, so more people are medicated, etc.

what does that mean wrote:

ventolin^3 wrote:

you can get things done pretty fast

i've ordered 3 MRIs & a CT in past 1/52

i don't understand how you're using numbers.

1/52 means a week. 1/7 means a day. 1/12 means a month, etc. It's how medical professionals do it over here for some reason.

As for the guy who was waiting 6 months, you're better off just walking in with a grimace and a limp and say it's affecting your life.

Look up cancer survival rates for the UK, they are well below average for developed countries. Treating cancer is expensive; refusing to treat one cancer patient allows you to treat say 20 patients with diabetes.

The pot o'money is only so big. NICE has judged many cancer treatments...some very effective ones...too expensive so they are not covered.

There is no free lunch. American attitudes are very different, if that were done here there would be an uproar.

Several years back there was a British oncologist diagnosed with mesothelioma. He wrote a pretty scathing article about being denied care; I believe he was eventually able to get it through a clinical trial, but the system just told him to put his affairs in order.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551216/The-drugs-the-NHS-wont-give-you.html

In the US we over-treat, we flog people with strong drugs past when there is any hope of benefit, but at least we don't deny people potential years of life.

But the pot o'money is only so big. THere is no easy answer, cuts have to be made somewhere.

In New Zealand you will get free health care no matter what. If it is an injury/accident that takes place at work, playing sport, at home you will be covered by ACC (accident compensation corporation). This pretty much means you are treated like a private patient with everything paid for (EVERYTHING), also you will get payments if you cannot return to work because of your injury.

If it is something like a hip replacement or heart surgery (not a sudden injury/accident) you will go onto the hospital waiting list. This should be no longer than 1-2 months. Otherwise you can pay for it using health insurance or out of your own pocket to go private.

It is a very highly regarded health system. Also if you are travelling to NZ you will be completely covered by ACC if you get an injury.

We are lucky though as it is so easy to do in such a small country.

nz wrote:

In New Zealand you will get free health care no matter what.

Nope. It's not free.

Reality Checker wrote:

There is no such thing as "free healthcare".

But there is cheaper healthcare, as a single-payer system would be. And of course, conservative small government people who benefit by raftloads of tax benefits subsidizing things for them talk like this all the time. They talk about things like "cheap food" when ridiculing the idea of avoiding the farming industrial complex when the only reason food is cheap is because of subsidiy and externalization of costs. Small government conservatives where I grew up in Gwinnett County, GA were to dim to see their quasi private schools and cheap housing and ability to commute 50 miles to escape undesireables. were all subsidized by tax dollars But it is only healthcare they want to nitpick over.

I think that the US system has proved that the market won't police itself and keep healthcare costs affordable; but what exactly does affordable mean? However, the government has also shown over the years that it too is incapable of managing costs and expenses, so what is the answer? Are American's ready for a DMV or Postal Svc. level of service experience-I think not. Single payer is also interesting because you still need the same backroom people and computer technologies to adjudicate and pay claims-I for one would hate to be a Dr. if and when that monopoly is created.

Reality Checker wrote:

There is no such thing as "free healthcare".

But there is such a thing as a healthcare system that costs more or less as a percentage of GDP. As a percentage of GDP, the US has the most expensive healthcare system of any developed nation, with fewer people covered, and worse outcomes than countries that spend less of their GDP for better results.

This inefficient and excessively expensive healthcare system hurts US productivity and puts the US at a competitive economic disadvantage to other countries that have better results for less money.

I had no idea the UK had a parallel private system. Sounds much better now that I know you could "hop the queue" if you had the money. And there is "private insurance" to cover people who want to be able to do that?

sdafasdfsda wrote:

I had no idea the UK had a parallel private system. Sounds much better now that I know you could "hop the queue" if you had the money. And there is "private insurance" to cover people who want to be able to do that?

Yep.