Skip to main content

Why the flu vaccine illustrates all that is wrong with the NHS

The UK's National Health Service is nudging ever closer to collapse. This fact is blatantly obvious to many. The political will to do anything about it is, however, sadly lacking. It is particularly disappointing that the Conservatives, in a position of strength, seem more interested in tackling the immigration 'problem' that isn't a problem, than getting to grips with the huge and pressing problem that is the health of the nation.
         As I have discussed before in this blog the NHS principle of free health care is simply unworkable in the modern world. That inevitably means some people are going to have to pay for treatment. This is already happening with the slow growth of the private system. Things would be much, much better, however, if the NHS would embrace the willingness of many to pay for better treatment. The flu vaccine provides a small but useful illustration of this issue.
          The flu vaccine is available free of charge on the NHS for young children and people aged over 65. What about the rest of us? More and more people want the vaccine and so a market has emerged to satisfy that demand. Indeed, the jab is now available at most major supermarkets for around £9-12 a shot. This means that many people are paying for a little bit of health care.  
          I don't think anyone sees anything wrong with the fact that some people get the jab for free and some don't. But, here is the crucial point: the NHS is denied the opportunity of making any money on the willingness of people to pay for this service. In our family, for instance, the kids go off to the local GP surgery to get their jabs while my wife and I go off to the local supermarket and pay £9. I, for one, would rather we just pay the NHS £18 and all get the jab at the same time.
        Clearly there is not a great deal of money to be made in flu jabs (although I doubt the supermarkets are doing it for the good of humanity). If the NHS did 1 million jabs at a profit of £1 at time then they still only make £1 million. This is not going to save an NHS short of billions of pounds. It is still, though, extra money that the NHS could make. If there was a willingness to sell other services then we might find the billions that are needed.
          The most common criticism of the NHS charging for some services is that it would create a two tier system. But, what is the problem with a two tier system? The beauty of a two tier system is that it can benefit both rich and poor. The rich gain because they can use their wealth to purchase a better quality service. The poor gain because the extra money coming into the NHS can improve services. Sure, there will be inequality. Everyone, though, gains. 
        As an example, consider waiting times to see a doctor. In the current climate a patient can consider themselves lucky if they get seen within an hour of the allotted time. Some people would be willing to pay to reduce that waiting time. Clearly, an option of fee for timely appointments would benefit the person who gets the 'better' service. The money that person spends can, however, be reinvested into the system to provide a better service to others.
      Indeed, those in the second tier may actually benefit most because they get the improvement for free! For instance, suppose it costs £100 for a timely appointment. Then the rich person gets seen on time but has to pay £100. Suppose that the extra revenue in the system reduces standard waiting times to 20 minutes. Then poor people get a better service and pay nothing for it. Everyone is a winner.
          So, rather than 'accept' that fee for service is 'necessary' for the NHS to survive, why not start to embrace it as something that can reinvigorate health care in the UK for everyone. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Honesty around the world

In my last post I looked at dishonesty in the banking industry. Sticking with a similar theme, this time I will at dishonesty across different countries.        Let us start with a study by David Pascual-Ezama and a long list of co-authors on 'Context dependent cheating: Experimental evidence from 16 countries'. They asked 90 students in 16 different countries to perform a very simple task: toss a black and white coin and record the outcome. If the coin came up white the student obtained a red Lindt Lindor Truffle. If it came up black they got nothing. Crucially, the coin toss took place in private and so the student could report whatever outcome they wanted. If they wanted a chocolate then they simply had to report white. (The study contrasted three different methods of reporting - form put in a box, form given to the experimenter or verbally telling the experimenter - but I will skip those details here.)           The chart below summa...
Post a Comment
Read more

Prisoners dilemma or stag hunt

Over Christmas I had chance to read The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure by Brian Skyrms. A nice read, very interesting and thought provoking. There’s a couple of things in the book that prompt further discussion. The one I want to focus on in this post is the distinction between the stag hunt game and the prisoners dilemma game.    To be sure what we are talking about, here is a specific version of both type of game. Adam and Eve independently need to decide whether to cooperate or defect. The payoff matrix details their payoff for any combination of choices, where the first number is the payoff of Adam and the second number the payoff of Eve. For example, in the Prisoners Dilemma, if Adam cooperates and Eve defects then Adam gets 65 and Eve gets 165. Prisoners Dilemma Eve Cooperate Defect Adam Cooperate 140, 140 65, 165 Defect 165,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Measuring risk aversion the Holt and Laury way

Attitudes to risk are a key ingredient in most economic decision making. It is vital, therefore, that we have some understanding of the distribution of risk preferences in the population. And ideally we need a simple way of eliciting risk preferences that can be used in the lab or field. Charles Holt and Susan Laury set out one way of doing in this in their 2002 paper ' Risk aversion and incentive effects '. While plenty of other ways of measuring risk aversion have been devised over the years I think it is safe to say that the Holt and Laury approach is the most commonly used (as the near 4000 citations to their paper testifies).           The basic approach taken by Holt and Laury is to offer an individual 10 choices like those in the table below. For each of the 10 choices the individual has to go for option A or option B. Most people go for option A in choice 1. And everyone should go for option B in choice 10. At some point, therefore, we expect the...
Post a Comment
Read more