57,000 Patients a Year Die Without Being Told Life-Saving Treatments Were Stopped

[mocgator]

The Death Panels are headed our way... it can be no other way... This is government control of healthcare. This is what it looks like. Enjoy...

Half of those on Liverpool Care Pathway never told

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9716418/Half-of-those-on-Liverpool-Care-Pathway-never-told.html

The study suggests that in total, around 57,000 patients a year are dying in NHS hospitals without being told that efforts to keep them alive have been stopped.

It also reveals that thousands of dying patients have been left to suffer in pain, with no attempt to keep them comfortable while drugs were administered.

Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, last night described the disclosures from records held by 178 NHS hospitals as "totally unacceptable".

He said the failure to consult patients would now be examined by an independent inquiry, which will also look at payments made to hospitals for meeting targets to place people on the pathway.

Each year around 130,000 patients are placed on the pathway. The national audit by the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute Liverpool and the Royal College of Physicians examined a representative sample of 7,058 deaths which occurred between April and June last year, at 178 NHS hospitals. Of these, X were on the pathway.

[philnotfil]

Of those 57,000 patients, how many could have paid for more care?

[rivergator]

Moc, I'd be curious what your specific complaint in here. Is that life-saving efforts were stopped for some people because you don't think that should ever happen?

[kygator]

Of those 57,000 patients, how many could have paid for more care?

That's an excellent question to ask the patients rather than just letting them die without giving them any options.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Of those 57,000 patients, how many could have paid for more care?

As many that chose to. That, of course, is not the point.

[rivergator]

As many that chose to. That, of course, is not the point.

Can you tell me what the exact point is?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

It was the bolded part. Not sue why you think that was tough to find

To wit;

The study suggests that in total, around 57,000 patients a year are dying in NHS hospitals without being told that efforts to keep them alive have been stopped.

They were kept in the dark and given no options. Not even an option to pay to continue life saving efforts.

You don't see that as a problem?

[rivergator]

According to the story, the issue is not that life-saving efforts were stopped. It's that they weren't told.
Don't you think that life-saving efforts are stopped often in the U.S. Isn't that what hospice is?

[Minister_of_Information]

80% of Medical expenditures occur in the last 6 months of life. If we are going to balance the budget this has to be looked at. But I agree that not consulting and not providing pain management is totally unacceptable.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

According to the story, the issue is not that life-saving efforts were stopped. It's that they weren't told.
Don't you think that life-saving efforts are stopped often in the U.S. Isn't that what hospice is?

My goodness man. The patients weren't told they could be dying and the patients were also not told there would be no measures to save them if they took a turn for the worse. IOW, the patients were not informed of their conditions nor given any options as to their treatment.

How can you conflate that with hospice?

[mocgator]

Moc, I'd be curious what your specific complaint in here. Is that life-saving efforts were stopped for some people because you don't think that should ever happen?

They weren't told!! That's ridiculous.

[mocgator]

80% of Medical expenditures occur in the last 6 months of life. If we are going to balance the budget this has to be looked at. But I agree that not consulting and not providing pain management is totally unacceptable.

Yet people pay their insurance premiums all their life.. (well the productive members of society) They should get their benefits. $100K for me to live another 6 months?... Hell effing yes! Who the eff are you or the stinking government to tell me I can't get treatment? It should be the patient's decision.. not the government's.

You bring up a fantastic point though!! That I've repeatedly said would happen. You are coming clean about it..

"If we are going to balance the budget this has to be looked at."

Finally some honesty!! This is why "government" must not be the arbiter of medical care. MUST NOT! They can make these insane dictates... and they will! "We have a $17T deficit... you are 65... you are too old to get that new hip... because it's too expensive.... sorry..."

This IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN!" It can be no other way.

[Minister_of_Information]

It's axiomatic that everyone isn't going to get everything they want, and triage decisions will have to be made. If you see that as a reason for panic, be my guest. Personally, before I become a burden to anyone I will take matters into my own hands. But just because a person is in denial about their mortality doesn't entitle them to openended care at public expense until their body literally cannot be kept alive.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

But just because a person is in denial about their mortality doesn't entitle them to openended care at public expense until their body literally cannot be kept alive.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with that point, it is not germane to the particular issue of being informed and being given options.

Being offered the opportunity to afford and pay for a life sustaining treatment should always, always be an option.

[Minister_of_Information]

Whether one agrees or disagrees with that point, it is not germane to the particular issue of being informed and being given options.

Being offered the opportunity to afford and pay for a life sustaining treatment should always, always be an option.

See my earlier post where I state something nearly identical. I was responding to moc's post immediately prior to mine.

[mocgator]

It's axiomatic that everyone isn't going to get everything they want,

If you can pay for it... you should be able to get anything you want.

If I'm ensured for fire protection... and a fire burns my house. Nobody should be able to say.. "well you're old.. you don't need a new house"... or "sorry... our budget is spent.. you get nothing"

When government controls anything it can and will be rationed.

[Minister_of_Information]

If you can pay for it... you should be able to get anything you want.

If I'm ensured for fire protection... and a fire burns my house. Nobody should be able to say.. "well you're old.. you don't need a new house"... or "sorry... our budget is spent.. you get nothing"

When government controls anything it can and will be rationed.

I'm only speaking to the extent the government nickel is involved. Naturally single payer does not rule out a parallel private system, in fact I think such a system is essential as I believe the single payer side needs to be spartan.

[wgbgator]

If you can pay for it... you should be able to get anything you want.

If I'm ensured for fire protection... and a fire burns my house. Nobody should be able to say.. "well you're old.. you don't need a new house"... or "sorry... our budget is spent.. you get nothing"

When government controls anything it can and will be rationed.

I'd suggest you check out any insurance policy you own. You will find that there are many duties on your part you must comply with, as well as limits as to what will be paid, and when it will be paid or for how long.

[Minister_of_Information]

If you can pay for it... you should be able to get anything you want.

If I'm ensured for fire protection... and a fire burns my house. Nobody should be able to say.. "well you're old.. you don't need a new house"... or "sorry... our budget is spent.. you get nothing"

When government controls anything it can and will be rationed.

Under the law your house can be dynamited to create a firebreak if the situation demands it.

[mocgator]

I'm only speaking to the extent the government nickel is involved. Naturally single payer does not rule out a parallel private system, in fact I think such a system is essential as I believe the single payer side needs to be spartan.

So what you're saying... is that in addition to the productive having to pay for the substandard medical care of the non-productive and the "takers"... we then have to pay for our own medical care separately?

Exactly the same model as with private versus government school. Money is confiscated from me to pay for non-performing government schools and I have to pay dearly for private school as well.

What a deal!

[wgbgator]

BTW, until Obamacare, there was a lifetime payout cap of $8 million on most health policies.

[mastoidbone]

I 100% agree that patients and family should NOT have the power to demand and get any care they want. If in minds of health care workers it is futile to continue care---that is it.

Now, i supposed you should inform family of that decision---and if they want to pay to go to a private hospital---i guess that is OK as well. But it is NOT ACCEPTABLE for family and patients with no medical knowledge to feel like health care delivery is a buffet they can choose from.

Objective criteria should be established and followed to reduce all the futile care that goes on.

[CHFG8R]

I'd suggest you check out any insurance policy you own. You will find that there are many duties on your part you must comply with, as well as limits as to what will be paid, and when it will be paid or for how long.

Here's the major problem with your point. Those contracts are negotiated between the customer (patient) and the insurance company. The customer is free to see if they can find/afford a better policy if they want to. They are FREE to shop around. Not the case with a single-payor, government-run system.

[CHFG8R]

So what you're saying... is that in addition to the productive having to pay for the substandard medical care of the non-productive and the "takers"... we then have to pay for our own medical care separately?

Exactly the same model as with private versus government school. Money is confiscated from me to pay for non-performing government schools and I have to pay dearly for private school as well.

What a deal!

I don't want to speak for MOI, but I think it would be something along the lines of the Medicare Supplimental Insurance. The single-payor, Government HC is the base, and one can purchase levels of coverage above that from private companies. I personally don't think it's such a bad idea.

Yes, there would be a tax increase for everyone. But companies would be completely alleviated (unless they choose to offer supplimential insurance as a carrot for employees) from having to provide healthcare. Not just of the costs to purchase it, but the costs embedded in the paperwork, yearly negotiations, etc. Also, wouldn't Worker's Comp insurance go away under a single-payor system?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

See my earlier post where I state something nearly identical. I was responding to moc's post immediately prior to mine.

Sorry, my mistake then.

[Minister_of_Information]

So what you're saying... is that in addition to the productive having to pay for the substandard medical care of the non-productive and the "takers"... we then have to pay for our own medical care separately?

Exactly the same model as with private versus government school. Money is confiscated from me to pay for non-performing government schools and I have to pay dearly for private school as well.

What a deal!

I'm not prepared to debate the ideology of free market Utopianism. Suffice it to say that all of man's institutions contain some flaw or other, which augurs the need to be pragmatic.

[Minister_of_Information]

I don't want to speak for MOI, but I think it would be something along the lines of the Medicare Supplimental Insurance. The single-payor, Government HC is the base, and one can purchase levels of coverage above that from private companies. I personally don't think it's such a bad idea.

Yes, there would be a tax increase for everyone. But companies would be completely alleviated (unless they choose to offer supplimential insurance as a carrot for employees) from having to provide healthcare. Not just of the costs to purchase it, but the costs embedded in the paperwork, yearly negotiations, etc. Also, wouldn't Worker's Comp insurance go away under a single-payor system?

Feel free to speak for me here, you're doing a fine job.

[CHFG8R]

Feel free to speak for me here, you're doing a fine job.

Any thoughts on worker's comp? Do you think there would still be a need to require all companies to carry it if everyone is already covered by a larger plan?

[Minister_of_Information]

Any thoughts on worker's comp? Do you think there would still be a need to require all companies to carry it if everyone is already covered by a larger plan?

If worker's comp was part of the plan, then sure. But I don't know that it would be, as it also has an income replacement aspect. By no means am I saying that the government ought to do everything, but if it has to be involved it should be done as efficiently as possible and with firm cost controls.

[wgbgator]

Here's the major problem with your point. Those contracts are negotiated between the customer (patient) and the insurance company. The customer is free to see if they can find/afford a better policy if they want to. They are FREE to shop around. Not the case with a single-payor, government-run system.

They aren't negotiated. Insurance policies are contracts of adhesion. Literally, take it or leave it. The consumer has no negotiating power, but they get the favorable interpretation of the contract in court in a dispute.

[mocgator]

I'm not prepared to debate the ideology of free market Utopianism. Suffice it to say that all of man's institutions contain some flaw or other, which augurs the need to be pragmatic.

The free market defeats fascist government control every single time.. You can't be "pragmatic" with tyranny... which is what we have in the USA today.