Junior doctors strike

Trying adding your medical insurance costs to these wonderful figures ( 22,000 for a family , on average in 2021). Also add statutory paid annual leave entitlement of 0 days, now add 0 days sick leave entitlement, zero mandatory pensions…..etc etc.

Your list of freedoms (to spend) in the US will continue to grow.

Sometimes naked figures only tell half the story.

Those figures are not quite factual. A lot of companies now have 401k, holidays and medical on their contracts. It’s how they attract and retain top talent.

Incentivises people to get better jobs and doesn’t burden the public purse to the same degree.
 
Those figures are not quite factual. A lot of companies now have 401k, holidays and medical on their contracts. It’s how they attract and retain top talent.

Incentivises people to get better jobs and doesn’t burden the public purse to the same degree.
Interesting topic for research, here are some quotes for various websites including Wikipedia:

56% of jobs offer health cover.

A major trend in employer sponsored coverage has been increasing premiums, deductibles, and co-payments for medical service

According to KFF, in 2021, employers covered 83% of their employees’ self-only insurance plans and 73% of employees’ family insurance plans. Let’s dive into these stats a little deeper.

Employer percentageEmployer dollar amountEmployee percentageEmployee dollar amount
Self-only premium of $7,739 annually83%$6,440 annually17%$1,299 annually
Family premium of $22,221 annually73%$16,253 annually27%$5,969 annually



More than 40% of insured individuals reporting that their plans do not adequately meet their needs.

The study estimated that in 2005 in the United States, there were 45,000 deaths associated with lack of health insurance

33% of the insured delayed medical treatment due to costs.

Uninsured are 40% greater risk of death.


  • The deductible is the amount paid for healthcare services before the insurer begins paying. Most deductibles are yearly amounts. For example, an employee may have a $2,000 annual deductible, which means they must pay out of pocket for $2,000 of medical services before the insurer covers any amount.
  • A copayment, or copay, is the amount employees pay directly to a healthcare provider at the time of service. Not all services or plans require copays.
  • Coinsurance is the percentage of costs that employees are still responsible for after their deductible, and it applies only to services covered by insurance. For example, if a plan has 20% coinsurance, the insurance company will pay 80% of each covered medical bill. The employee is responsible for the other 20%.



It’s a fascinating and complex topic. Worthy of further research.
 
Interesting topic for research, here are some quotes for various websites including Wikipedia:

56% of jobs offer health cover.

A major trend in employer sponsored coverage has been increasing premiums, deductibles, and co-payments for medical service

According to KFF, in 2021, employers covered 83% of their employees’ self-only insurance plans and 73% of employees’ family insurance plans. Let’s dive into these stats a little deeper.

Employer percentageEmployer dollar amountEmployee percentageEmployee dollar amount
Self-only premium of $7,739 annually83%$6,440 annually17%$1,299 annually
Family premium of $22,221 annually73%$16,253 annually27%$5,969 annually



More than 40% of insured individuals reporting that their plans do not adequately meet their needs.

The study estimated that in 2005 in the United States, there were 45,000 deaths associated with lack of health insurance

33% of the insured delayed medical treatment due to costs.

Uninsured are 40% greater risk of death.


  • The deductible is the amount paid for healthcare services before the insurer begins paying. Most deductibles are yearly amounts. For example, an employee may have a $2,000 annual deductible, which means they must pay out of pocket for $2,000 of medical services before the insurer covers any amount.
  • A copayment, or copay, is the amount employees pay directly to a healthcare provider at the time of service. Not all services or plans require copays.
  • Coinsurance is the percentage of costs that employees are still responsible for after their deductible, and it applies only to services covered by insurance. For example, if a plan has 20% coinsurance, the insurance company will pay 80% of each covered medical bill. The employee is responsible for the other 20%.



It’s a fascinating and complex topic. Worthy of further research.

Their system works if your in a well paid job but obviously can fall short on those at the lower end of the spectrum but on the face value the disparity between us and our current contributions isn’t as big as made out. There’s also Obama care and other stuff.

Iirc my premiums in Switzerland were circa £500 a month with £250 excess but same day I could get an mri, see a specialist gp, optician and dentist was worth every franc. Being able to see someone straight away often meant conditions could be treated without the condition worsening and requiring more invasive treatment.

No systems perfect but if they were minded we could cherry pick the best of all the set ups and make it work. However we will not make it change.
 
You are right the two economies are very different so is the attitude to work and self sufficiency and small versus large government. If we as a nation are going to continue down the route of high taxation and free healthcare then we all need to recognise we are going to have to pay significantly higher taxes than we do now in order to get the healthcare everyone needs or we continue to ration and increase the rationing of healthcare by increased waiting lists and further things not covered by the health service, like dental and vision are now. Also in amongst all of this the current NHS must be made to be more efficient and better value for tax payers money.
Trouble is how do you measure value for money? How long a waiting list is or how much time and care is given to someone in pain and dying?
Waiting lists are a crude measure and lead to a disproportionate amount of money and time being put into keeping them low. This then causes distraction from other areas of need.
Social care is where we should be targeting. Get that right all other places will fall into place. The failing if this 12 years of Tory government is the failure to live up to their promises and ‘get social care done’ to coin a phrase of the English trump.
 
Their system works if your in a well paid job but obviously can fall short on those at the lower end of the spectrum but on the face value the disparity between us and our current contributions isn’t as big as made out. There’s also Obama care and other stuff.

Iirc my premiums in Switzerland were circa £500 a month with £250 excess but same day I could get an mri, see a specialist gp, optician and dentist was worth every franc. Being able to see someone straight away often meant conditions could be treated without the condition worsening and requiring more invasive treatment.

No systems perfect but if they were minded we could cherry pick the best of all the set ups and make it work. However we will not make it change.
I’m sure if you offered the juniors similarity to the Swiss system, they would jump at it. The Swiss do invest a lot more into it.
 
Trouble is how do you measure value for money? How long a waiting list is or how much time and care is given to someone in pain and dying?
Waiting lists are a crude measure and lead to a disproportionate amount of money and time being put into keeping them low. This then causes distraction from other areas of need.
Social care is where we should be targeting. Get that right all other places will fall into place. The failing if this 12 years of Tory government is the failure to live up to their promises and ‘get social care done’ to coin a phrase of the English trump.

You describe perfectly the rationing system for healthcare we have here in the UK. To end rationing we have to accept direct tax rates of up to 50% or 60%. No one wants to pay that, so we continue with rationing. It’s not a Tory problem and it’s not a Labour problem. All political parties of every shade have promised to fix the NHS, including social care over the last 30 odd years, non have managed it because the tax take is not sufficient to fix it. So the dilemma continues. If Labour win in 2024, and it looks highly likely, they will also not fix it.
 
Trying adding your medical insurance costs to these wonderful figures ( 22,000 for a family , on average in 2021). Also add statutory paid annual leave entitlement of 0 days, now add 0 days sick leave entitlement, zero mandatory pensions…..etc etc.

Your list of freedoms (to spend) in the US will continue to grow.

Sometimes naked figures only tell half the story.

Most people in the US get their heath insurance paid as part of their employment. Those that don’t get help with either Medicaid, Medicare or The Affordable Health Care Act ( Obama Care). The ACA ensures no one or family pays more than 8.5% of their income on healthcare.

Individuals and families can set up Health Care Savings Account (HSA) and a couple can put into it up to $7,200 a year tax free, it attracts interest and can be viewed as a healthcare pension plan for current future health care costs.

As for paid holidays and paid sick leave they are earned by service. My son has over 300 hours sick leave accumulated, so much that he sometimes donates some to his co- workers who run short.

All workers have a 401k, a personal pension plan that both employee and employer contribute provide the employee a pension on retirement. The advantage is that it belongs to the employee and is totally portable when they change jobs.
 
You describe perfectly the rationing system for healthcare we have here in the UK. To end rationing we have to accept direct tax rates of up to 50% or 60%. No one wants to pay that, so we continue with rationing. It’s not a Tory problem and it’s not a Labour problem. All political parties of every shade have promised to fix the NHS, including social care over the last 30 odd years, non have managed it because the tax take is not sufficient to fix it. So the dilemma continues. If Labour win in 2024, and it looks highly likely, they will also not fix it.
It's not the case that people are merely unwilling to pay 50-60% tax rates, it is that having tax rates that high damages the economy beyond the level it can sustain, so is self defeating as a means of raising money to pay to underproductive public sector staff who are already more highly paid and enjoy better conditions than the private sector workers footing the bill.
 
Interesting topic for research, here are some quotes for various websites including Wikipedia:

56% of jobs offer health cover.

A major trend in employer sponsored coverage has been increasing premiums, deductibles, and co-payments for medical service

According to KFF, in 2021, employers covered 83% of their employees’ self-only insurance plans and 73% of employees’ family insurance plans. Let’s dive into these stats a little deeper.

Employer percentageEmployer dollar amountEmployee percentageEmployee dollar amount
Self-only premium of $7,739 annually83%$6,440 annually17%$1,299 annually
Family premium of $22,221 annually73%$16,253 annually27%$5,969 annually



More than 40% of insured individuals reporting that their plans do not adequately meet their needs.

The study estimated that in 2005 in the United States, there were 45,000 deaths associated with lack of health insurance

33% of the insured delayed medical treatment due to costs.

Uninsured are 40% greater risk of death.


  • The deductible is the amount paid for healthcare services before the insurer begins paying. Most deductibles are yearly amounts. For example, an employee may have a $2,000 annual deductible, which means they must pay out of pocket for $2,000 of medical services before the insurer covers any amount.
  • A copayment, or copay, is the amount employees pay directly to a healthcare provider at the time of service. Not all services or plans require copays.
  • Coinsurance is the percentage of costs that employees are still responsible for after their deductible, and it applies only to services covered by insurance. For example, if a plan has 20% coinsurance, the insurance company will pay 80% of each covered medical bill. The employee is responsible for the other 20%.



It’s a fascinating and complex topic. Worthy of further research.

These figures are about right.

Taking your family figure if $5,969 annual contribution for a family is also about right, but it would be covered by the reduction in tax paid.

Ive just done a quick calculation on my taxation situation if I were living in the US. I would pay $6,000 a year less in tax (and that does not take into account the reduced indirect taxation), so that would cover it.

So you could say it’s a financial draw. However, I would be able to chose which heath care network I went with and within that I could choose which hospital and doctor I used. Also waiting lists would not be a thing.

As you say a fascinating subject worthy of further research and debate, as we search for a better funding model for the NHS. What is clear from the US numbers, individuals over here going to have to pay more for their healthcare if we are to have a better quality of healthcare in the UK.
 
It's not the case that people are merely unwilling to pay 50-60% tax rates, it is that having tax rates that high damages the economy beyond the level it can sustain, so is self defeating as a means of raising money to pay to underproductive public sector staff who are already more highly paid and enjoy better conditions than the private sector workers footing the bill.

Yep there are numerous reasons why tax rates that high would be disastrous.
 
You describe perfectly the rationing system for healthcare we have here in the UK. To end rationing we have to accept direct tax rates of up to 50% or 60%. No one wants to pay that, so we continue with rationing. It’s not a Tory problem and it’s not a Labour problem. All political parties of every shade have promised to fix the NHS, including social care over the last 30 odd years, non have managed it because the tax take is not sufficient to fix it. So the dilemma continues. If Labour win in 2024, and it looks highly likely, they will also not fix it.
Sorry but under the last Labour government significant improvements in heath care happened. The figures show that. Over the last twelve years that success has been slowly eroded.

Your argument is not based on facts, the Tory’s do not support a health system equitable to all. Why should they when their mates can make a profit. Just look at what happened over contracts during the pandemic
 
When looking at the NHS in the UK, we can see 4 different models run in different ways.
Scotland = SNP
England = Tory
Wales = Labour
N. Ireland = difunctional unit/ civil servants unable to do anything.

Are any good? NO. all have issues. Generally speaking the NHS work , doctors , physios', nurses are working flat out in all the systems.
After 25 yrs of working in the NHS I feel, tired, emotionally bashed, under valued, and under paid.
I have worked in England but left for Wales 10 yrs ago. Left England due to the increasing under minding of the fabric of the NHS, with the private sector doing the easy work leaving the NHS to do all the non profitable (so unable to balance the books) work , with the higher risk patients .
We saw the closure of community hospitals ( Labour) that increased numbers blocking beds, while waiting times were reduced significantly (Labour) for procedures.
We then saw even more working being done in the private sector ( Tory) degrading the ability for the NHS to survive. So NHS England is in a very poor position.

off to Wales: no private sector to worry about as its not used at much. but also not working, with long waiting times, lack of beds, lack of staff wanting to work in the area. was bad pre covid now even worse. This system has also failed.

this leave my patients with long waiting times, increase worry about their future health.
As with all of you, I am an NHS user and we are in a bad place, currently no way out.

if you believe health care for all, we need to spend more on health care and take it out of the hands of the politicians.
 
Sorry but under the last Labour government significant improvements in heath care happened. The figures show that. Over the last twelve years that success has been slowly eroded.

Your argument is not based on facts, the Tory’s do not support a health system equitable to all. Why should they when their mates can make a profit. Just look at what happened over contracts during the pandemic

You make the mistake of bringing politics into the NHS debate. The NHS has been failing the nation for decades under both governments. Neither party will be able to fix it because the funding / organisational / delivery model is fundamentally flawed. It needs a complete overhaul / reform in order to deliver some thing close to what the nation needs. As others of said we keep pouring in increasing amounts of money and getting a steadily worse health care service. This is not sustainable, a new approach is needed. Much of the (valuable) discussion on this thread as been about looking at alternative options, which are apolitical.
 
When looking at the NHS in the UK, we can see 4 different models run in different ways.
Scotland = SNP
England = Tory
Wales = Labour
N. Ireland = difunctional unit/ civil servants unable to do anything.

Are any good? NO. all have issues. Generally speaking the NHS work , doctors , physios', nurses are working flat out in all the systems.
After 25 yrs of working in the NHS I feel, tired, emotionally bashed, under valued, and under paid.
I have worked in England but left for Wales 10 yrs ago. Left England due to the increasing under minding of the fabric of the NHS, with the private sector doing the easy work leaving the NHS to do all the non profitable (so unable to balance the books) work , with the higher risk patients .
We saw the closure of community hospitals ( Labour) that increased numbers blocking beds, while waiting times were reduced significantly (Labour) for procedures.
We then saw even more working being done in the private sector ( Tory) degrading the ability for the NHS to survive. So NHS England is in a very poor position.

off to Wales: no private sector to worry about as its not used at much. but also not working, with long waiting times, lack of beds, lack of staff wanting to work in the area. was bad pre covid now even worse. This system has also failed.

this leave my patients with long waiting times, increase worry about their future health.
As with all of you, I am an NHS user and we are in a bad place, currently no way out.

if you believe health care for all, we need to spend more on health care and take it out of the hands of the politicians.

Why is there no recognition of a need to increase productivity? You simply cannot continue to have a health system that consumes the fabric of the nation, because that undermines the ability to fund it irreparably. Astonishing quantities of resources are squandered irresponsibly because various parts of the NHS simply can’t be bothered to do it properly. Further available resources are left unused because of an ideological determination that it is better to keep excessively long waiting times and poor patient outcomes, than to pass work to the private sector or alternative care pathways or to efficiently deal with conditions before they escalate.

It raises serious alarm about the mental capacity of practitioners if they continue to pretend that the problem is underfunding, and deny that poor internal management, poor patient communication, bad staff behaviour and low productivity are significant and serious issues.
 
Why is there no recognition of a need to increase productivity? You simply cannot continue to have a health system that consumes the fabric of the nation, because that undermines the ability to fund it irreparably. Astonishing quantities of resources are squandered irresponsibly because various parts of the NHS simply can’t be bothered to do it properly. Further available resources are left unused because of an ideological determination that it is better to keep excessively long waiting times and poor patient outcomes, than to pass work to the private sector or alternative care pathways or to efficiently deal with conditions before they escalate.

It raises serious alarm about the mental capacity of practitioners if they continue to pretend that the problem is underfunding, and deny that poor internal management, poor patient communication, bad staff behaviour and low productivity are significant and serious issues.
poor internal management: agree, most clinicians started work in the nhs to help patients, they have evolved to do management, and is almost the thing that happens when you been around a long time. so often not due to good planning.

poor patient communication? not sure what you mean here. most of the complaints I get is because patients do not get what they think they need eg MRI, Xray ect.
listening is required by both parties in a conversation. Patients should get appropriate care including MRI ect. Appropriate is the key. We do far to much imaging, and this causes waiting lists, plus increased costs. We should be running the NHS by evidence based practice. I do acknowledge that other countries image everything. Is this due to worries about litigation and protective medicine or is it evidence based?

Bad staff behaviour: That must be me on a Saturday night out? not really sure what your saying again. I would hope that you would not think all staff working for the NHS behave badly. yes it happens, long shifts, no lunch, no down time or sometimes just a bad day. What I get feed up with is patients behaving badly. The entitlement for things that have no benefit to their management.

Low productivity: lets look at why there are fewer GP's, too stressful a job, lack of time, high demand, high risk of missing something.
I am not sure if I could be significantly more productive in my roles. I rarely have spaces in my clinics, I keep imaging to patients that clinically require them. I could reduce a few onward referral to secondary care when not needed, but all that happens is the patient complains or makes appointment with another practitioner and the another practitioner till we all get worn down and refer on. Then they see the consultant who says nothing to do here and the patient starts the cycle once again.

"
It raises serious alarm about the mental capacity of practitioners if they continue to pretend that the problem is underfunding
I guess you have not used the NHS for sometime, or been luck to get a gp appointment or not wait in A+E, or wait for a bed, or investigation or even been able to leave hospital as there is no where for well patients to go.

There is unlikely to be a consensuses on how to run , manage and provide health care. I believe free for all at point of access. but very sad that we as a whole have let the NHS get to this state.
 
poor internal management: agree, most clinicians started work in the nhs to help patients, they have evolved to do management, and is almost the thing that happens when you been around a long time. so often not due to good planning.

poor patient communication? not sure what you mean here. most of the complaints I get is because patients do not get what they think they need eg MRI, Xray ect.
Indeed, but what about the complaints you don’t get, but which still exist? Throughout nearly all parts of the NHS, the system of dealing with appointments is a complete and wasteful shambles. This is particularly acute with GP practices, the area in which doctors could have the highest level of control. Appointments are often not communicated properly, it is either virtually impossible to get a timely appointment without pretending everything is an emergency. Receptionists or booking staff are generally obstructive, frequently rude and nearly always unprofessional. Large numbers of appointments are missed (as frequently as not by the NHS as the patient, but usually misrecorded), some - for expensive operations - are never communicated to the patient at all, or directed to inappropriate staff.
Another dangerous area of poor communication is that test and imaging results and consultants’ reports more often than not disappear into a black hole and the doctors who are supposed to review them in a timely manner frequently never even see them without patient intervention. Some staff have informed me that XXX person, hospital or entity NEVER reads their reports, so they provide them directly to patients. Certainly this has been our family’s experience over long periods in different regions, with conditions as severe as cancer, brain tumours, child epilepsy, anaphylaxis, spinal cord operations, heart disease and so on.
listening is required by both parties in a conversation.
It certainly is. And the very clear message is that doctors point blank refuse to contemplate the reality that the NHS system is not the optimal way to deliver healthcare. The conversation in the UK is constrained by the absurd pre-condition that the NHS is the only acceptable system for delivering healthcare, and that every other developed country in the world is operating a dangerous and far-right wing system that endangers patients and staff. That needs to be dropped. Doctors are collectively at fault in this through electing representatives who hold such views. You’re all intelligent people, so why does the conversation from that side need to be so ideological, dismissive of patient experience and frankly blinkered about the outside world?
Patients should get appropriate care including MRI ect. Appropriate is the key. We do far to much imaging, and this causes waiting lists, plus increased costs.
And for other patients, far too little imaging is done. On the whole, imaging equipment, and much other stuff, could be used far more efficiently. There is no sound reason why expensive equipment like MRI scanners are not used 24/7 instead of perhaps 10/6. From the patient’s perspective, actually the NHS does far too little imaging, testing, and analysis which is why GP demand is so high, and is a large component of why people are driven to private healthcare.
We should be running the NHS by evidence based practice.
Are we doing that? Or are we operating on probability-based practice?
I do acknowledge that other countries image everything. Is this due to worries about litigation and protective medicine or is it evidence based?
Indeed. But do we contend that NHS doctors are better than foreign (or, for that matter, private UK) doctors? I suspect that would not be a tenable line of argument. Litigation is a massive cost, and one that ideally ought not to exist at a significant level, but it only arises where the approach taken was probably wrong. Given that, then it leads to the conclusion that more imaging (and I think testing?) would be preferable. Personally, I struggle to see how one could operate an evidence-based method without collecting the full portfolio of evidence.
Bad staff behaviour: That must be me on a Saturday night out? not really sure what your saying again. I would hope that you would not think all staff working for the NHS behave badly. yes it happens, long shifts, no lunch, no down time or sometimes just a bad day. What I get feed up with is patients behaving badly. The entitlement for things that have no benefit to their management.

Low productivity: lets look at why there are fewer GP's, too stressful a job, lack of time, high demand, high risk of missing something.
Let us also look at the other side of that coin. Three out of four of those factors are also to a very significant degree consequences of inefficiency.
I am not sure if I could be significantly more productive in my roles. I rarely have spaces in my clinics, I keep imaging to patients that clinically require them. I could reduce a few onward referral to secondary care when not needed, but all that happens is the patient complains or makes appointment with another practitioner and the another practitioner till we all get worn down and refer on. Then they see the consultant who says nothing to do here and the patient starts the cycle once again.
That is a major source of waste in itself. The large majority of patients acting in that way are actually ill, or dying.
"

I guess you have not used the NHS for sometime, or been luck to get a gp appointment or not wait in A+E, or wait for a bed, or investigation or even been able to leave hospital as there is no where for well patients to go.
I hope that’s not what you’d call an evidence-based guess, because sadly it is very wrong.
There is unlikely to be a consensuses on how to run , manage and provide health care. I believe free for all at point of access. but very sad that we as a whole have let the NHS get to this state.
Indeed, but by delegitising any rational discussion or analysis of a way forward, what else would anyone with a remotely scientific education expect? We are where the medical lobby insisted on being. We are not where patients or voters wanted to be. Blaming politicians or taxpayers is not an acceptable course.
 
Indeed, but what about the complaints you don’t get, but which still exist? Throughout nearly all parts of the NHS, the system of dealing with appointments is a complete and wasteful shambles. This is particularly acute with GP practices, the area in which doctors could have the highest level of control. Appointments are often not communicated properly, it is either virtually impossible to get a timely appointment without pretending everything is an emergency. Receptionists or booking staff are generally obstructive, frequently rude and nearly always unprofessional. Large numbers of appointments are missed (as frequently as not by the NHS as the patient, but usually misrecorded), some - for expensive operations - are never communicated to the patient at all, or directed to inappropriate staff.
Another dangerous area of poor communication is that test and imaging results and consultants’ reports more often than not disappear into a black hole and the doctors who are supposed to review them in a timely manner frequently never even see them without patient intervention. Some staff have informed me that XXX person, hospital or entity NEVER reads their reports, so they provide them directly to patients. Certainly this has been our family’s experience over long periods in different regions, with conditions as severe as cancer, brain tumours, child epilepsy, anaphylaxis, spinal cord operations, heart disease and so on.

It certainly is. And the very clear message is that doctors point blank refuse to contemplate the reality that the NHS system is not the optimal way to deliver healthcare. The conversation in the UK is constrained by the absurd pre-condition that the NHS is the only acceptable system for delivering healthcare, and that every other developed country in the world is operating a dangerous and far-right wing system that endangers patients and staff. That needs to be dropped. Doctors are collectively at fault in this through electing representatives who hold such views. You’re all intelligent people, so why does the conversation from that side need to be so ideological, dismissive of patient experience and frankly blinkered about the outside world?

And for other patients, far too little imaging is done. On the whole, imaging equipment, and much other stuff, could be used far more efficiently. There is no sound reason why expensive equipment like MRI scanners are not used 24/7 instead of perhaps 10/6. From the patient’s perspective, actually the NHS does far too little imaging, testing, and analysis which is why GP demand is so high, and is a large component of why people are driven to private healthcare.

Are we doing that? Or are we operating on probability-based practice?

Indeed. But do we contend that NHS doctors are better than foreign (or, for that matter, private UK) doctors? I suspect that would not be a tenable line of argument. Litigation is a massive cost, and one that ideally ought not to exist at a significant level, but it only arises where the approach taken was probably wrong. Given that, then it leads to the conclusion that more imaging (and I think testing?) would be preferable. Personally, I struggle to see how one could operate an evidence-based method without collecting the full portfolio of evidence.

Let us also look at the other side of that coin. Three out of four of those factors are also to a very significant degree consequences of inefficiency.

That is a major source of waste in itself. The large majority of patients acting in that way are actually ill, or dying.

I hope that’s not what you’d call an evidence-based guess, because sadly it is very wrong.

Indeed, but by delegitising any rational discussion or analysis of a way forward, what else would anyone with a remotely scientific education expect? We are where the medical lobby insisted on being. We are not where patients or voters wanted to be. Blaming politicians or taxpayers is not an acceptable course.
Imaging : clinical reasoning vs just doing

Girish et al 2011: 51 people age 40 -70 and pain free were scanned (shoulder) 78% had bursal thickening, 65% ACj degreneration and 39% cuff tendinopathy.

Guermazi et al 2012 710 people age 51-89 pain free knee scan : 68% cartilage damage, 72% osteophytes

Brinjiki et al 2015 3110 pain free people age 20-80 spinal scanned: 80% disc degeneration

Register et al 2012 45 pain free people age 15-66, 69% had labral lesions

So it is common place to have pathology and be pain free. What is needed is skill to assess the patient and then though clinical reasoning think do we need imaging.

Treating the patient and their symptoms is key, treating only imaging is not good practice.

There should always be a clinical question when requesting imaging, what are you looking for? Just doing imaging for the sack of imaging an be dangerous.
 
Imaging : clinical reasoning vs just doing

Girish et al 2011: 51 people age 40 -70 and pain free were scanned (shoulder) 78% had bursal thickening, 65% ACj degreneration and 39% cuff tendinopathy.

Guermazi et al 2012 710 people age 51-89 pain free knee scan : 68% cartilage damage, 72% osteophytes

Brinjiki et al 2015 3110 pain free people age 20-80 spinal scanned: 80% disc degeneration

Register et al 2012 45 pain free people age 15-66, 69% had labral lesions

So it is common place to have pathology and be pain free.
This raises questions which are difficult to phrase, so please excuse me if this seems blunt. Are you saying that the pathology is not particularly important unless you have pain? At the very least, I would think there was useful information for preventative or mitigating measures. That principle appears to me uncontroversial. Surely the point of medicine/ general practice is not significantly a matter of dealing with pain? If that is the case, I'm absolutely horrified.

What is needed is skill to assess the patient and then though clinical reasoning think do we need imaging.
But honestly, how often does the typical patient actually get a proper process of assessment and expert clinical reasoning at the first appointment with a GP? From the other side of the fence, it is far from a sure bet.
Treating the patient and their symptoms is key, treating only imaging is not good practice.
I think the area where misunderstanding arises is that the doctor, apparently, may think there is a reasonable binary choice between those two alternatives, but frequently for patients what is actually happening is a third pathway which is neither imaging not treating the patient and their symptoms in the ideal manner. In that light, imaging, or testing, is much preferable to inappropriate treatment. You focus on imaging, but it is also frequently difficult to get appropriate or precautionary testing or referral done, even when it is cheap. As you'd earlier said, there is the great difficulty in medicine of the risk of dangerous error - serious misdiagnosis or slow diagnosis. I remain unconvinced that less evidence leads to better evidence-based medicine.
There should always be a clinical question when requesting imaging, what are you looking for? Just doing imaging for the sack of imaging an be dangerous.
That strikes me as a case of reductio ad absurdem, which frankly is predicated on the presumption that the patient is probably an idiot. That may frequently seem to be the case, but is not a sensible basis on which to operate. Nobody does imaging for the sake of it (excluding the mentally ill), there is a clinical question: the patient thinks they're ill or is concerned to exclude the chance of serious illness. It has costs for patients as well as providers.
 
Back
Top