Most health boards could miss surgery waiting time target is the actual headline which BBC Scotland has in the above.
BBC Scotland is, of course, not reporting the actual performance data but preferring to tell us about the bad news they predict will happen, the two-year waiting guarantee.
I’m not suggesting they should not report negative NHS news but, in the interests of the balance they claim matters to them (see James Cook recently) they should also reporting hitting targets, like this:
During the quarter ending 30 June 2022, 375 patients attended an IVF screening appointment, an 11.1% reduction in comparison with the previous quarter (422 patients). By the end of the quarter, the average number of patients screened each month was similar to the pre-pandemic level during 2019. The 90% standard was met, with 99.5% of patients attending a screening appointment within 52 weeks from referral.https://www.publichealthscotland.scot/publications/ivf-waiting-times-in-scotland/ivf-waiting-times-in-scotland-quarter-ending-30-june-2022/
IVF treatment targets have been met for years now and they are, contrary to the silence around them, hugely important, more perhaps than many others getting headlines. Why?
The lack of media attention to this is remarkable given the very significant wider benefits of this service in terms of mental health.
Those relatively new to the site may not have seen this. I appreciate that this probably needs updating but still I think makes important points:
Reducing associated mental health complications
Failing to treat infertility can result in problems and further costs for the NHS in other areas. A Danish study of 98 737 women, between 1973 and 2003, showed that women who were unable to have children were 47% more likely to be hospitalised for schizophrenia and had a significantly higher risk of subsequent drug and alcohol abuse.
Meanwhile in Tory-run NHS England, only 12% of boards offer three full cycles in line with official guidance. 61% offer only one cycle of treatment and 4% offer none at all.
A warning for Scotland’s 100% IVF post-Brexit: How moneygrubbing Tory IVF policies are creating massive distress now in England
How IVF became a licence to print money.
As we tumble toward a hard Brexit and trade deals with the USA allowing the private sector into the heart of the NHS, we can see how things will work out in the already privatised IVF service in England and contrast it with the state-controlled and regulated version, in Scotland. See this from the Guardian:
‘Private fertility clinics routinely try to sell desperate patients add-ons that almost certainly don’t help – why isn’t more done to monitor the industry? Around three-quarters of all IVF cycles fail. And results vary with age. Figures from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) published in March state the average live birth-rate for each fresh embryo transferred for women of all ages is 21%; for those aged under 35, it is 29% – the highest it has ever been. For older women, the picture is bleaker: 10% for women aged 40-42, for example. IVF is expensive. And what makes it worse, says Hugh Risebrow, the report’s author, is the lack of pricing transparency. “The headline prices quoted may be, say, £3,500, but you end up with a bill of £7,000,” he says. “This is because there are things not included that you need – and then things that are offered but are not evidence-based.”’
Creating opportunities for the private sector
In Tory-run NHS England, only 12% of boards offer three full cycles in line with official guidance. 61% offer only one cycle of treatment and 4% offer none at all. Private treatment costs between £1 343 and £5 788 per cycle.
Why UK politicians would like more privatisation in the NHS
There are 64 Tory and Labour (New) MPs with ‘links’ to private health care. Why would we trust them to protect the NHS? See this: