CANCER CAN WAIT IN ENGLAND

A fifth of patients with suspected cancer wait more than a month to be seen by a specialist in England, a report showed on Friday. The National Audit Office (NAO) survey of more than 4,000 cancer patients found widespread improvement in care provided by the National Health Service since the last survey in 2000. But the research also showed that large numbers were waiting weeks or months before being seen by a cancer specialist after visiting their doctor with symptoms. The survey, which includes both patients referred urgently and those not referred urgently, found 58 percent of patients were seen by a specialist within two weeks in 2004 - up from 46 percent in 2000. A further 22 percent of patients were seen by between two weeks and one month, while 20 percent waited longer than one month. A government target states that all patients with suspected cancer referred urgently by their doctor should be seen by a specialist in two weeks.

The report looked at the experience of patients from going to their doctor to support in the community after being discharged from hospital. Patients with the four cancers that account for the greatest number of deaths -- lung, breast, bowel and prostate -- were asked how long they had to wait before being seen by a specialist. Breast cancer patients were most likely to be seen within two weeks -- at 70 percent -- followed by lung cancer patients at 68 percent. Only 51 percent of bowel cancer patients and 32 percent of prostate cancer patients were seen within two weeks, though these were up on the 2000 figures.

Source




GOVERNMENT MEDI-MUDDLING HURTS AMERICAN BUSINESS

American manufacturers are losing their ability to compete in the global marketplace in large measure because of the crushing burden of health care costs, General Motors Corp. chairman and chief executive G. Richard Wagoner Jr. said yesterday as he called on corporate and government leaders to find "some serious medicine" for the nation's ailing health system. In a speech at the Economic Club of Chicago, the auto executive, who is responsible for providing health insurance for more people than any other private employer in the nation, graphically detailed how rising medical bills are eating into his company's bottom line and ultimately threatening the viability of most U.S. firms. "Failing to address the health care crisis would be the worst kind of procrastination," Wagoner said, "the kind that places our children and our grandchildren at risk and threatens the health and global competitiveness of our nation's economy."

After spending several years on the health policy sidelines, Wagoner is launching a mini media blitz, hoping the competitiveness argument will be the one that finally prompts lawmakers to take on an increasingly expensive system rife with inefficiencies and inequities. Wagoner said he intends to press his case personally in Washington and with the nation's governors. Though self-interest may be at the heart of Wagoner's crusade, he and a range of corporate leaders and policy analysts warned that GM's woes are a harbinger of what lies ahead. "GM is the canary in the coal mine for Medicare and everyone else," said Sean P. McAlinden, chief economist at the nonprofit Center for Automotive Research. "There are many, many more companies out there in trouble because of health care costs than just the auto, steel and airline industries."

McAlinden, a labor expert sympathetic to union views, said many in Washington have mistakenly concluded that GM and other carmakers are simply whining about costly union contracts. "GM and the United Auto Workers didn't cause this double-digit inflation in health care," he said. And if GM pushed for sharp reductions in health benefits, the powerful union would likely strike and send the company into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, he predicted.

Last year the automaker, known for its innovative approach to health care, spent $5.2 billion to cover 1.1 million retirees, employees and their families. Prescription drugs cost GM $1.9 billion, and the company projects overall medical spending will increase by $400 million this year. That could be offset by a provision in the Medicare drug benefit to pick up a portion of firms' retiree drug costs. But the figure that prompted Wagoner to raise his voice is $1,500. That is the amount of money added to the price of every single vehicle to cover health care, a cost that his foreign competitors do not bear. "The cost of health care in the U.S. is making American businesses extremely uncompetitive versus our global counterparts," he said....

Yesterday, Wagoner broke his silence on an idea proposed by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in the 2004 presidential campaign, saying he supports some type of national catastrophic reinsurance program. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has also endorsed the concept of a separate government-backed insurance pool to cover the most expensive medical cases. "If we can create a comprehensive insurance model to better share these catastrophic costs among all consumers, then we can take a big step toward providing affordable health care coverage for all our citizens," Wagoner said.

Wagoner and fellow executives find much to be frustrated with in the health care system. "It's simply not acceptable for over 45 million Americans to be without health care coverage," he said, echoing a point made recently by Jack O. Bovender Jr., chief executive of health care giant HCA Inc. "And it's unfair for those of us who do provide health care benefits to have to pay higher bills to cover the costs of the uninsured.

More here

***************************

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.

Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Page is here or here.

***************************