As the healthcare debate picks up pace, I find myself being asked with increasing regularity what I think of Britain’s healthcare system. Six months ago, I’d have jumped into the answer with gusto, but these days… I don’t know, I am just so fatigued by all the fear-mongering and hysteria, the ignorance and the downright idiocy of the current debate that I can hardly summon the energy to add my voice to the cacophony.
But the other night when a friend of my mother’s emailed me and asked that now-familiar question — what was my experience and what did I think of British health care? — and I was surprised to discover that, once the initial weariness had worn off, I found myself turning her question over and over in my mind, composing my answer. When I sat down last night and started my reply, the words fell out me, my fingers tapping rapidly at the keyboard and my mind so engrossed in the assignment that I was stunned when I finally looked at the clock: it was 2.30 in the morning. I had been so consumed because what I had to say had been bursting to come out, an outraged truth that was tired of being bottled-up and was begging to be told.
When I lived in the UK, I railed against the NHS (the National Health Service). I cursed every delay, every perceived inconvenience, every way it differed from the care I had received in the US. But I moved to the UK only a few months after graduating from university and, until then, I had been covered on my parents’ very generous insurance so I had experienced American healthcare only as a dependent. I was judging my British experience from a lofty and privileged position of someone who’d always had gold-plated insurance. And I was naive, because I’d never had to pay for it, never had to worry it wouldn’t be there, never really had to deal with the paperwork. I never really understood what I was comparing the NHS to at all.
I also realise with hindsight that a lot of what I held against the NHS had nothing to do with the system itself and actually were issues that could happen in any system. I blamed the whole system when the loo in my local doctor’s office or hospital wasn’t clean enough. I blamed the whole system when the only space I could find at the hospital carpark was miles away in the very furthest corner. I blamed the whole system when the doctors’ receptionist was grumpy or I didn’t much like my doctor’s manner (or his diagnosis). But the truth was that I believed in the healthcare system I had grown up in and I didn’t like the idea of socialised medicine — I didn’t like socialised anything — so I saw problems with it where-ever I chose to look. And I held onto that belief right up until I arrived back in the United States, and discovered that grumpy receptionists and dirty hospital bathrooms and annoying carparks can happen in any system — because they have nothing to do with the system itself. They’re management issues, human nature issues, and they happen everywhere. And a lot of the fear that Americans have about change in their healthcare actually center around these kind of issues that have nothing to do with the system itself, be it socialised or for-profit.
So my return to the US and my sudden immersion in the American healthcare system was a rude awakening for me and it made me look at both systems a little more realistically. There are great things about healthcare in the US — great things — and I truly do believe that the quality of the care here is second to none. But there are great things to be said about Britain’s system as well and the trouble is that, at present, far too few people are saying those great things and far too many here in the US are beginning to believe utterly ridiculous things about the NHS. Let me play a small part in putting that right by outlining my experience of the British healthcare system.
- First, I’ll start by pointing out that the NHS is truly one of the most socialist — almost Soviet — healthcare models that a country could possible choose. Unlike the health systems in France, Germany, and most of the rest of the developed world, it is totally government-run, almost totally centrally-controlled, and supported entirely through taxation. It is mammoth — the single largest employer in Europe, which is incredible when you realise it serves a small country with only 60million people. And with that kind of size come huge problems — consultation times are too short and it takes too long to get test results, amongst other things. It is not a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination. But it’s important to realise that when I talk about my experience, I am talking about the kind of system that truly is the very far extreme of what the nay-sayers are claiming will be the end result of public health provision in the US. The British system is the very stuff of their nightmares and yet, the truth is, it’s nothing like what they imagine.
- My healthcare in the UK was never dictated by a bureaucrat. Decisions were made by me and my doctor alone, and whatever we decided was the right course of action was the course that was taken. The scope of care available to me was far, far wider than what is covered even by the ‘very good’ insurance policies I’ve had here in the US. There were no limits on the number of times I could see my doctor, or the number of tests/procedures/consultations/etc that I could have in a year (or month or lifetime…) Whatever was deemed medically necessary by my doctor was covered — period. In fact, I’ve experienced a lot more limitations on my care since I’ve moved back to the US — the most memorable of which was when I had to beg the insurance company to cover a single visit to a nutritionist when E2 was diagnosed with 12 food allergies and was severely underweight. That simply never would have happened in the UK — if she needed it (and she did), she’d have got it (as her sister did after being diagnosed with a single allergy). To illustrate the point further, when I gave birth to E1, I stayed in hospital for five days because she had problems with breastfeeding — and that was entirely my decision. I was free to leave hospital whenever I wanted, be that after one day or after a week, and I had the full support of the midwives to stay until they were sure we were breastfeeding properly and ready to leave — no administrator/bureaucrat/insurance company made that decision for me!
- There are delays — there are delays — but to be honest I have experienced delays just as bad here in the US. In the UK, I might have to wait weeks or months to see a specialist if my case was not urgent, and that was frustrating. Here in the US, when I was in excruciating pain last year (so bad that I lost control of my bodily functions when the pain hit), I was referred to a breast surgeon by the ER doctor (7 hour wait in ER) — but the trouble is that we had to call five medical centers before we could find a surgeon who could see me any sooner six weeks, and even then it was only because they had a surprise cancellation. And the last time I needed to take E2 to the allergist here in the US, the earliest they could fit me in was two months later. There are delays in both systems. And by contrast, you can get very speedy service in the US… and you can get it in the UK too. When I needed to see my GP in the UK, I rarely had to wait until even the next day. When I thought I’d found a lump in my breast, I saw the doctor the next day and was sent to a specialist within the week.
- I had my choice of doctors. My small rural town had two GP offices (a GP is a General Practitioner, a family doctor) with about 5 GPs in each office — I could choose either office and any GP in that office I chose. I could choose to go to the GPs office in a neighbouring town if I prefered (though some offices limit the regional area they’ll cover). I could change GPs at anytime for any reason, no questions asked. When I had my babies, I had my choice of any of the hospitals in the region, or a homebirth (the midwives in my area loved doing homebirths!). When my GP referred me to a specialist, he’d send me to whomever he thought best, but if I wanted someone or somewhere else, I could request that, no problem. And I always had the option of a second opinion, either through another NHS doctor or a private doctor.
- I never once received a bill in the UK. There are no copays, there are no deductibles, there is no such thing as max-out-of-pocket. I have an NHS card which I showed at my GP’s office when I registered, and from that point on, I never had to fill out any forms or show any ID ever again. In fact, I think I lost my NHS card years ago — I have no idea where it is. It doesn’t matter — I don’t need because I am covered for everything once I am registered with my GP. When I stepped on a piece of glass and sliced up my foot, I went up to the local hospital, was seen immediately (rural hospital on a Tuesday afternoon), they took note of my name and address, patched me up, and I went home — simple as that. No bills, no paperwork, no hassle. Yes, Brits pay to cover it in their taxes, but the cost spread across the entire country and so it isn’t nearly the burden that insurance is for Americans. In fact, Brits spend only 8.4% of GDP on healthcare, compared to the 16% of GDP spent by Americans and what they get back is a system beats the US on so many basic measures of healthcare results. This is good quality care.
- Brits believe that healthcare is a human right and are happy to have a system that covers everyone, all the time. They are HORRIFIED when they hear stories of Americans who have to hold fundraisers to pay for desperately-needed operations. It blows their minds that anyone goes bankrupt or loses their home because of medical bills. The idea that someone would lose their coverage because of a pre-existing condition or because they are so sick they can’t work is totally alien to them. These things simply do not happen in Britain.
- Even with a comprehensive healthcare system that is available to all and completely free (at the point of delivery) the UK still has a healthy private system running alongside the state system. There are numerous large private insurance companies providing private health insurance to those who’d like to have it (or whose companies want to offer it). There are private hospitals up and down the country. Most specialists practice both within the NHS and also privately (they split their weeks). You can pretty much get your healthcare however you’d like — on the NHS, through private insurance, or paid out of your own pocket. I hear people in the US saying that with in the British system, you can’t see anyone but your government-assigned doctor, but that is totally untrue. And you can chop and change your care as it fits your life — I’ve had my care for an medical issue start on the NHS, and then switched my care to my private insurance if it suited my needs better. I’ve had other medical issues that I stayed with the NHS for the whole way. And when my husband had an elective medical procedure done that was covered by neither the NHS nor insurance, we simply paid for it out of pocket. It’s a flexible system and the private sector has not been quashed by the fact that there is a comprehensive, free public system running alongside it.
- Because healthcare is not tied to employment, companies are free to focus on their core business and people are free to make career decisions (and life decisions) based on what is best for them instead of what preserves their healthcare. Brits never worry about keeping their healthcover — they never worry about pre-existing conditions; they never worry about continuity of care if they change jobs; they never get trapped into a bad-fit job because they have to keep their healthcover. They are much freer to be entreprenuers than Americans, because their only worry is whether their business will succeed, not how they’re going to provide healthcover for their families when they’re self-employed. Companies, particularly small companies, are free to focus on their core-business because they not burdened by the administration of healthcare for their employees — they never have to pay someone in HR to manage health benefits; they don’t have to juggle insurance companies and negotiate lower premiums; they don’t lose employees because their healthplan isn’t as good as some other company; they don’t see their bottom line rocked by a sudden rise in premiums. Decoupling healthcare from employment is hugely freeing to both individuals and employers, and can actually a very good thing for the economy at large.
- When things go wrong, the government answers to the people in a way that insurance companies never do. For example, there was a cancer drug called Herceptin which was not covered on the NHS because of the cost. A group (led by Ann Marie Rogers) began a campaign to change this, suing their local health trust, and gained huge public support. They ultimately won their case and got their local trust to offer the drug — but because of the political pressure this campaign had created, the government extended the drug to the entire country. Imagine trying to convince an American insurance company to cover some expensive drug that they don’t want to cover, and then having that decision convince every other insurance company to do the same. And again, when I moved to the UK fifteen years ago, wait times in the NHS were much worse than they are now — but the public got fed up with it, made their voices heard in the General Election, and the new administration made cleaning up the NHS one of their highest priorities.
- There is an emphasis on preventative care and the simplest way this happens is that people actually go to see their doctor when they are sick. Because there’s no cap on visits and no copay and everyone is covered, hardly anyone hesitates to go to the doctor when they need to, which gives them a chance to catch little issues before they become big issues and spot contagious diseases before they spread to the rest of the population. And here’s another way the focus is on prevention: when I had my babies, the midwives came to my house to check on us every day for the first 10 days after the baby was born, and then the Health Visitor (a community nurse) came to the house once a week for six weeks, and then I could go to her clinic (held once a week in town) for as long as I wanted after that with any concerns I might have (as well as being able to see a doctor — my choice). It’s all done to ensure the mother and baby are healthy and well, to support breastfeeding, and to catch problems as early as possible. I was utterly shocked when I found out that most new mums in the US are simply sent home with their babies, with no follow up in the first six weeks, and left to muddle through as best they can!
- None of this actually tells you anything. Isolated anecdotal stories (like these) don’t actually give anyone the information they need to decide the merits of one system over another. All it does is tell you whether my particular doctor was good or bad, whether the nurse I encountered was having a good day or a bad day, whether the receptionist liked her job or hated it. There are good stories and bad in both systems, and it just depends on who you talk to. It’s much like public schools. You could ask parents across the US to tell you what they think of their kid’s school and you’d get a whole spectrum of answers: some schools are good, some are bad, some districts are rich, some are poor, some teachers are passionate, some have lost the will to live. But none of these things tells you whether the overall concept of publicly-funded schools is a good or bad one. If you drew your conclusions based on a bunch of stories from a handful of people about their personal experiences, you’d only be getting part of the story. And it’s no different with the concept of public healthcare.
I can sum up my experience of the British and American healthcare systems in one simple sentence: given a choice between the two systems, I’d choose the NHS in a heartbeat. And though this is the experience of only one single person out of millions, unlike so much of the propaganda and hysteria surrounding the current healthcare debate, it is the absolute Gospel truth.
———————-
Addendum: This is an incredibly important issue with a lot of misinformation flying about. If you have experience of both the US and UK healthcare systems, I invite you to please leave a comment here and let us all know what you think of both systems. This debate needs more voices of experience and a lot less uninformed fear.


Kay, the NHS dental system was reformed to function more like the American health care system. As you noticed, this was not a success, it led to the American problem of people not getting treatment.
The reason people are critical of the US system is that it does not provide health care to all, its results are quite poor, and it costs twice as much as it should.
As for the US bearing research costs for the rest of the world, I am sure that is a comforting myth, but it is just a myth. Numbers do not bear it out:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1179763/
I’m an American expat in the UK (23 years).
I’ve had good dentists and bad dentists. There are idiots everywhere. That’s not the NHS’s fault.
However, at least UK dentists don’t spend every single visit trying to convince you your child needs braces. My mum spent the first 17 years of my life fending off my US dentist’s attempts to get braces on me and never, ever succumb, thank the gods.
My teeth are perfectly straight, I never needed them. They just wanted the money.
Utterly disgraceful.
You would be unlikely to hear criticism of the NHS from the vast majority of British people because, in all but a tiny number of cases, it looks after them very well. It treats three million people each week and, yes, there are a few horror stories – but no organisation is perfect. I was born into it, as were my wife and my children. Cost? Nothing. Both sets of our parents suffered lengthy declines in hospitals before they died, looked after impeccably by the NHS to the end. Cost? Nothing.
Three years ago, my wife developed leukaemia, from which she nearly died. After spending a month on an ITU at, in dollars, $4,000 a day, she then spent four months in hospital recovering, at daily cost of around $362 before being restored to full health. That’s roughly $164,000 in total for her treatment. Cost to our family? Nothing. I would be described as a blue-collar worker and pretty unlikely to be able to carry the health insurance that sort of bill would entail in America, so where would I find the money to pay it? The thought of some family going through the worry we did with the added burden of how we might be able to pay for it is terrible to contemplate.
Prescriptions for my children when they were growing up were free until they reached sixteen. So was any dental treatment. Prescriptions for myself now cost $77 a month – but instead I pay a single sum of $180, which covers me for any prescriptions I require for a full year. I’m 60 this year and prescriptions will become free for me. I pay for the NHS through deductions from my monthly salary. It’s not a lot of money. But it ensures that, in the event of a serious illness in my family, I won’t be left with a bill so crippling that my children will still be paying it after I’m dead.
As a disinterested onlooker from New Zealand*, can I sum up the debate?
If you’re a wealthy American with gold standard health insurance (mostly paid for by your employer), you’re experiencing the best system in the world.
If you’re an American with bog standard or no insurance, you’re living in a country capable of delivering the best health care in the world . . . but you’re denied access to it.
If you’re that wealthy American and suffer an ailment that requires an aspirin, a bandaid and a lie-down, you’re going to get every test and scan known to man before a final diagnosis is made.
If you’re the other American and you do suffer an ailment that needs every test and scan known to man then the first thing scanned will be your wallet.
Health care in the US must be the most inefficient allocation of resources in the history of mankind, narrowly heading off everything ever done by the UN.
If you’re a Brit, you’re in safe hands . . . pity about the bad teeth.
*I came across this blog while googling for that American congresswoman who claimed, in the early stages of the current US health debate, that if she’d been living in New Zealand when she had whatever ailed her she’d have died — the sort of gratuitous insult that sees American relations with the rest of the world a constant series of one step forward and one step back.
I was searching what americans think of the uk and britian and came across you site
First, this is a well written, unbias, well thoughtout and intresting article, so well done. I read every comment as i was so interested! I have heard many horror stories from us friends about bills and costs for things we take for granted, although they admit nhs is flawed in some areas, they generally say good things (some bad ofcourse hehe) and think its a remarkable and quality service.
I have a condition, lets not go into medical jargon hehe, but without the nhs i hate to vision how i’d be. I have bad allergies and don’t think i could step outside on a summer day as my hayfever is so bad alone, and i hate for my family to pay the cost for my inefficiencies. Its not right to refuse anyone when health is concerned, its not right to force people into things to fund their organization but i feel it is a right for healthcare, regradless of your income.
about dental, I was so depressed about my teeth when i was young, i didnt want to live, i felt ugly everyday, but every dentist and orthodentist was good and nice and i was treated free until i was 19, braces and everything. My teeth have since moved in some places where i didnt take the advice to wear a retainer but they are 1000x better now, I can smile once again and i do not feel the need to cover my mouth like im coughing burping or chewing food.
Healthcare, its a right not a priviledge!
This article makes me feel proud and glad i am british, thank you and well done
A very well written article that should be sent to the President on healthcare in America. I am British living in the USA with my husband who is American. He spent 20 years in the UK and had several health issues, all dealt with promptly by NHS. He turned 65 in UK and started claiming US Social Security (pension) but did not claim Medicare as he was covered by the NHS, but now we have moved to the USA he is being fined for not starting Medicare at 65, which now means we cannot afford to get cover for the gap. I also do not have any cover as I have high blood pressure (border-line) which is controlled with 2 tablets, but the insurance rockets with pre-existing conditions. The only people that I have heard complain about the NHS are those that know no difference, those that havent really had any dealings with it.
I see that this thread stopped rumbling along two years ago, but personal experience compels me to add my supports to the NHS. Some of the daft rumours I have seen even now simply blows my mind. Treatment not given to the elderly? Jesus, some people have watched Logan’s Run one too many times I think.
The simple fact of the matter is, free care is given to everyone, no matter what.
My mum is nearly 70 years old. She fell ill last year, with her face swelling up to twice its size. After an agonizing night in bed, we took her to the GP, who sent her to the local hospital the same day (actually the same morning). She was in that hospital for two months, coming close to death. After she developed Staphylcoccal Scalded Skin Syndrome, all of her hair and skin fell off due to painful blisters all over her body, hands, feet, face, the lot. She had 24 hour a day care on the specialist intensive care ward. They found she had a brain infection causing all of the problems and sent her to a hospital who had a brain surgeon to get her checked in case they needed to drill her skull to drain the fluid on her brain. In the end, they gave her a cocktail of drugs that over the course of three months, cleared the infection. Her skin grew back, as did her hair after 6 months. And the NHS even provided a free wig that looked like her real hair while she was bald. She is now mostly recovered, albeit with a slight weakening of her facial muscles on one side.
All of this treatment, and time, free. Think of it. All the drugs they gave, the time they spent, the bedspace used for over two months, the wig. All free. And all to someone approaching 70. Euthenasia my arse, stupid Republicans.
At the exact same time this was happening, my new born son stopped eating. When he did eat, he projectile vomited the whole lot up again. One night he was crying he was so hungry, so we called NHS 24 at 2am, they sent us to an emergency clinic at 4am, the emergency clinic suspected Pyloric Stenosis and sent us to the same hospital my mum was at, who confirmed the diagnosis the day after they ran tests. We were then sent to the Children’s Hospital at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary where my son was given the necessary operation to allow him to ingest his food properly, and thus live. Problem solved, within a week, and again, for free.
So, my mum and son both saved for free. Socialist healthcare? Damn straight I support it.
I’d like to update my last comment – I believe that the NHS has declined in areas over the last couple of years.
Apart from my own more recent experiences, websites such as http://nationaldeathservice.blogspot.com/ list egregious errors for which no-one ever seems to be held accountable.
I now think that a health system similar to France’s or Germany’s would serve patients here better. Those systems seem to give the patient control over their treatment, rather than the stark options of private medical insurance or free at the point of use state provision.
[...] This American’s Experience of Britain’s Healthcare System is one person’s account of the US and UK healthcare systems (h/t Tuibguy). The author opens the door to a reasoned, evidence-based discussion of what health care should be like. The post contains no yelling, no hyperbolic disaster scenarios, no conspiracy theories. Even better, there are some really really well thought out comments. This is the conversation that the entire nation should be having. Some of the excellent points made by commenters: [...]
Ok. One major flaw in these arguments that is simply not being brought up. How does the system in Britain get paid for? It is my understanding that the UK pays for education, health care, what not for its citizens, but is also accumulating a mass amount of debt and has riots now when the government can’t pay anymore. If I could live in a place where everyone got everything they needed then I would be in Heaven or a Dream, neither of which is in this life or reality.
Frank,
Britain’s healthcare system (the NHS) is paid through general taxation, in the same way that schools, roads, the police and army (etc) are paid for in both the US and the UK. The cost of that healthcare in the UK is about half of what it is in the US (8.4% of GDP in the UK vs 16% in the US) while, interestingly, the US government ultimately covers about half of its country’s healthcare costs (according to several sources including, most recently, Bruce Bartlett, senior policy advisor in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and staff member for Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul, in the New York Times http://is.gd/ezmuEt), bringing government spend by GDP to a rough par between the two countries. In other words, the (comprehensive) British healthcare system is paid for by its citizens through taxation to roughly the same extent that American citizens pay for (half their) healthcare through taxation.
The causes of the riots in London are the source of a lot of debate at the moment, but almost no serious commentator is attributing them to Britain’s healthcare system. If (and that’s a big if) they were caused by recent cuts in public spending, the cuts were primarily to other benefits, not to healthcare.
[...] “This American’s experience of Britain’s health-care system~,” is from Potential and Expectations (8/13/09). Diane calls it “an excellent and thorough post.” [...]
I’m 16 years old and have lived in the UK all my life. I have visited the US but had not experienced the healthcare system there. When I was 11 and at school I was teased and bullied for having large ears that stick out (try not to laugh too hard). I visited my local family doctor with my parents and explained the situation to him. I was then referred to the local hospital about 5 mins drive away within a week. After a 1 month wait I had an operation on my ears and my childhood was enlightened! The whole op was free and my parents paid nothing. From reading the above posts I can imagine that this operation would not have been possible in the US due to high costs. I have nothing but praise for the NHS but understand it has problems which is most probably the case for the healthcare in the US and around the world.
In my British mind, health care is a fundamental human right and health care should therefore be socialised. The American system sounds appauling to us and, what with the NHS budget cuts, we’re kind of seeing a similar reaction to the one you guys had in the States – people pointing out all of the negatives of the American healthcare system and terrified that we’re heading towards a privatised system.
As a sidenote, if you weren’t happy with the NHS, you could have paid for private healthcare with a company such as Bupa. Nobody forced you to use the NHS.
I apologise. I should have read your whole article before getting defensive. It was actually a very well written and unbiased article. I’m just passionate about the basic human right of healthcare. I’ve heard Americans spout a lot of damn right moronic stuff about our ‘commie pinko’ healthcare system since Obama was elected and it’s gone from a slight irritation to infuriatingly insulting.
I love the NHS. Its not great. Nor the best in the world. But I like the fact taht everyone gets the best treatment for for free. That is not the case in reality due to the inverse care law – ie the best healthcare proffessionals go to the rich places where their services arent needed as much. But that happenes everywhere.
One thing i utterly hate is when NICE doesnt allow a drug on the NHS becuase people then have to pay thousands of pounds or rally the PCT for their lives. That sucks. Thoguh that doesnt happen often. As does the fact England tries to save money by giving more and more of aspects over to the private sector, like privately ran GP surgerys. Which will cost England more in the long term; they may not have the high startup costs, but they have to pay for the heathcare proffesionals time, building maintence AND THE PRIVATE COMPANIES PROFIT. FAIL. FOOLS.
The inconsistancies of how the postcode lottery (services are dictated by where you live) and of how each country runs its NHS suck too. ie NHS in Scotland is a lot better than the NHS in England – a lot more govt funded, free eye tests, free medicine etc. But the Scottish state of health is in a mess, so it does need more attention.
NB: I find the thought of the American health system horrible. When i watch CBS News at 3am to see people queuing around the block just to get some free heathcare. => SAD IN THE EXTREME but ive never personally experienced it.
Written by a UK Pharmacy Student about to fail his exams as he is reading this when he should be revising!
What Interesting reading the pro’s and con’s of both systems. But nobody ever said when they moved from the US to the UK that they got onto the NHS register straight away, although I think one person made some comment on that subject.
I have duel citizenship US/UK and I intend to marry an American and reside In the UK. My only concern that she has type 2 diabetes and on arrival In the UK I don’t know what to expect In the way of care, or prescriptions. I would love to get an answer on this issue. We are both over the age of 60.
John
Response to Danna
“So your son almost died because you were not tested for GBS, a test that is covered by insurance and practically mandatory at just about every practice in the US, but must be payed for privately in the UK? A simple swab and a round of penicillin could have saved him a lifetime of doctors care. Why is this test not a routine part of the NHS coverage? Apparently not EVERYTHING is covered by the NHS”
Just to clarify. Testing for Group B Haemolytic Streptococcus is entirely free if your General Practitioner decides it is worthwhile. There is no NHS restriction on testing. If it is up to the doctor to decide.
The reason why it is not undertaken is because UK doctors (myself included) don’t think it is worthwhile. The rationale is as follows:
a) 70% of sore throats have non-bacterial causes therefore penicillin is ineffective. Indeed the use of penicillin & 30% of sore throats are caused by group B haemolytic streptococcus
b) the evidence suggests that antibiotic treatment will reduce the duration of illness by about 24 hours (e.g. shortening illness from about 4 days without treatment, 3 days with treatment) and reduces the risk of getting rheumatic fever after throat infection by about 2/3. But this is
Don’t take my word for it, check the evidence: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD000023.pub3/abstract
c) Antibiotics have adverse effects (diarrhoea, allergic reactions in a small number of cases)
d) Rheumatic fever is very uncommon in the UK – about 1 in 100,000 persons get it per year. But sore throats are common. So it is likely that fewer than 1 in 10,000 sore throats are followed by Rheumatic fever. If we had 30,000 cases of sore throat and didn’t treat them we might get 3 cases of Rheumatic fever. If we treated all 30,000 cases with antibiotics we would get 1 case of Rh fever. So we treat 30,000 to prevent 2 cases. Given that maybe 5% would get side effects (diarrhoea) and 1 in 1000 an allergic reaction this stacks up as follows:
No treatment
3 x Rh fever
Treat all
1 x Rh fever
1,500 x diarrhoea
30 x allergic reactions
(Plus adding to bacterial resistance, plus patients tend to consult again with the same problem when it arises, so you are encouraging patient dependency)
Most UK doctors think that this is more harm than good.
Another small difference is that US physicians may be paid fee for service so they get paid more for doing tests, whereas UK general practitioners are paid by capitation, so they prefer not to encourage patients to consult or to do more tests than strictly necessary.
So this is a complicated question, but it does not have much bearing on the UK NHS versus US health care systems.
Thank you for your well-written and informed blog, which I just stumbled upon. As an American who is currently living in, and who has developed a chronic illness in, the UK, this is a topic that is very important to me. Especially as it is still being debated in the Supreme Court as I write this, some three years after your post. I would like to move back to the US, but I’m unsure if I can. And this is solely because of the way that healthcare is tied to jobs in the US and because of my ‘pre-existing’ condition that requires very expensive medication.
Oh, and I hope that it’s ok if I share this via Facebook. Yours is one of the best articles on this issue that I’ve found.
Absolutely!
And thank you.
I live in Scotland and as such use the NHS. two years ago I was suffering a serious alcohol addiction and lost my job and apartment within 7 months, a year ago I was admitted to crosshouse hospital with the early effects of liver cirrhosis and received excellent medical assistance with both the illness and my alcoholism. I’m now in college and have a flat on the outskirts of Glasgow. Although the NHS is not perfect but I owe it my life and don’t have it in me to badmouth it. I applied for american basic insurance from two separate insurers while visiting family in Arizona and was turned down on both due my past alcoholism and (Now fully recovered) liver damage so I doubt I would have survived if I had lived in America instead of Britain.
It’s hard to come by well-informed people for this subject, but you seem like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks