Manipulation of the cost of Type2 diabetes?

[catherinecherub]

Ignore the NHS Propaganda: Fat people are not to blame for it's soaring costs.

in fact it is worse than double-counting. Diabetes may cost the NHS £10 billion a year but that figure includes the cost of type-2 diabetes, which is only partially related to obesity, and type-1 diabetes, which is not at all related to obesity. If Mr Stevens thinks it is not deceitful to add the entire NHS diabetes bill to the entire obesity bill and portray the total as an unnecessary and avoidable cost of ‘modifiable health risk factors’ then he has been very poorly advised.
http://health.spectator.co.uk/ignor...fatties-arent-to-blame-for-its-soaring-costs/

 

[tim2000s]

@catherinecherub That's not helped by the title the person who owns Diabetes for the NHS holds:

Jonathan Valabhji - National Clinical Director for Obesity and Diabetes

 

[catherinecherub]

If, as this article states, that all spending on diabetes, regardless of type is lumped together then surely I can pose the question regardless?
I posted a link to the article but did not say that I agreed/disagreed with it.
The whole object of placing it in the Diabetes Discussions was to get some feedback. I am sure other members will contribute.

 

[AndBreathe]

To be honest, in terms of Management Accounting, I would expect, for whole NHS purposes that Diabetes would be one heading, or the accounts would be even more of a nightmare to create, manage and interpret.

Sadly, in a large organisation a certain percentage of double or erroneous accounting can happen. The concern would be if things are completely our of hand, or if the practise is malicious.

Diabetes costs a lot of money. Although obesity may not be at the root cause of T1, it undoubtedly can have an impact on it's management and the potential outcomes of T1 folks who are carrying weight.

Of course, I'm not saying all T1s carrying weight are in for trouble, but I think concepts with insulin resistance in T1s is becoming recognised more frequently. In my mind, that must be a bit of a nightmare; needing to inject insulin to remain well, but one's body struggling to cope with the insulin in the system. But, I digress and prattle on. As I do.

 

[Jaylee]

If, as this article states, that all spending on diabetes, regardless of type is lumped together then surely I can pose the question regardless?
I posted a link to the article but did not say that I agreed/disagreed with it.
The whole object of placing it in the Diabetes Discussions was to get some feedback. I am sure other members will contribute.

Thanks for the link. It's nothing surprising realy!

The way I see it? Ds of all types are treated & given misinformation (or none at all.) by the NHS. This same "misinformation" pretty much mirrors the general public "conception" of diabetes..
Even as a young T1 I always felt like I was visiting a "drug rehab drop in".?! There are "grey areas" with each doctor I see..

All I saw in that "Panorama" program were T2s set up to fail by a system. The amputees "took it on the chin" with grace. They couldn't take that out of the clever editing...

"Doctor knows best". Take these tablets or whatever & call me in three months.... 3 months later? Your guess is as good as mine. (Possibly the magic bullet?) They get demoralised by the appointment, then read the media. Possibly a comment from the odd DSN who picks up the same vibe from the Daily Mail.... Lovely! Not.

There are Ds of all types on here, breaking the "mould" & doing what works for them which is essentially lowering blood sugars and the getting A1c back in line...
I'm not really bothered who's "overweight".

Catherine. My comment is not an angry tirade at you.. (Most my stuff comes from a dodgy SOH.) I have respect.
You wanted "feedback"..

It's all a "smoke screen" regarding the "10billion". It takes our minds off stuff like "the war on terror."
The "fat kid" is the cheapest trick in the school bully book...

 

[Brunneria]

Thanks @catherinecherub

I finally got round to reading you link.

Interesting stuff.

I question the figures. Partly because the points in the article have merit, but also because i am a sceptical person who doubts any politician spouting any figure. They always spin it somehow.

Very interesting point about the aging population. One of my social history classes discussed the impact of the welfare state in fascinating terms. The ghist (that I recall) was that before the NHS and pensions, people would work until they couldn't. Virtually no one ever retired. If they hadn't saved enough to stay independent, they then moved in with other family members or became homeless. If they needed medical care, then access to the physician or apothecary depended on family funds. Then, in time, they died.

I distinctly remember being told that average life duration was usually short (months, not years) after having to stop work, or being unable to keep a dwelling.

Exactly this process happened to my great grandparents. When they could no longer live alone, they moved into my grandparent's spare room, living for a couple of years confined to single beds, side by side.

Just 2 generations later we live in a different world, with care homes, and nursing homes, and carers, and tv dinners reheated in the microwave, and repeat prescriptions delivered to our doors.

Ok, I'm rambling now. So i will stop.

 

[serenity648]

I think that figures like the ones being banded about, putting the blame for diabetes on the diabetics, and not separating out the totals of the NHS bill etc, is a smoke screen. Like talking about huge welfare bills and scroungers, when including the state pension, for example, into the mix.

Where are the screaming headlines and debates and programs about the impact of the bedroom tax and reduced disability benefit?

all this blaming of 'others' is to deflect public attention and outcry from the real issues and outrages being enacted against large swathes of the population.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

I've read several media based reports suggesting the total cost mentioned is the drugs bill alone. However, I've seen a breakdown of that 10% or is £1 billion or is it £1.4 billion, it tells a different story. I'm sure Diabetes.co.uk has a proper breakdown, sadly I can't find it, I'll look when I have more time.

 

[chalup]

I am just wondering what the "bedroom tax" is?

 

[Robinredbreast]

I am just wondering what the "bedroom tax" is?

if tenants of a property do not fill the bedrooms and there is more than one spare room unoccupied, the person gets penalised for it and has to pay towards it. But not the elderly over a certain age who still live in a 2 or 3 bedroom property.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-it-unlawful-and-discriminatory-a6836611.html

 

[chalup]

Wow that is a strange one.

 

[Robinredbreast]

I've read several media based reports suggesting the total cost mentioned is the drugs bill alone. However, I've seen a breakdown of that 10% or is £1 billion or is it £1.4 billion, it tells a different story. I'm sure Diabetes.co.uk has a proper breakdown, sadly I can't find it, I'll look when I have more time.

I found these links from a year ago :-
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...n-number-of-cases-charity-warns-10458353.html

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweig...causes-of-the-obesity-epidemic-in-the-UK.aspx

 

[Robinredbreast]

Wow that is a strange one.

That's our government for you, very heated at the time.

 

[equipoise]

I note that Simon Stevens is a close friend of Boris Johnson (who has been described by those who know him as a compulsive liar). His experience of the NHS outside management seems to consist of a week's work experience as a hospital porter. He has no qualifications whatsoever in medicine.

 

[Jaylee]

Thanks @catherinecherub

I finally got round to reading you link.

Interesting stuff.

I question the figures. Partly because the points in the article have merit, but also because i am a sceptical person who doubts any politician spouting any figure. They always spin it somehow.

Very interesting point about the aging population. One of my social history classes discussed the impact of the welfare state in fascinating terms. The ghist (that I recall) was that before the NHS and pensions, people would work until they couldn't. Virtually no one ever retired. If they hadn't saved enough to stay independent, they then moved in with other family members or became homeless. If they needed medical care, then access to the physician or apothecary depended on family funds. Then, in time, they died.

I distinctly remember being told that average life duration was usually short (months, not years) after having to stop work, or being unable to keep a dwelling.

Exactly this process happened to my great grandparents. When they could no longer live alone, they moved into my grandparent's spare room, living for a couple of years confined to single beds, side by side.

Just 2 generations later we live in a different world, with care homes, and nursing homes, and carers, and tv dinners reheated in the microwave, and repeat prescriptions delivered to our doors.

Ok, I'm rambling now. So i will stop.

On the subject of healthy people living longer, thus costing more money in their "dotage" in the long run?

There was a guy on the radio a while back who wrote a book. Sorry I forget who he was. (I was driving at the time too.) & I've been seriously trying to Google him with regards to subjects like this. (It was a book plug after all! Lol) I can't even find a "podcast."

But the long and short of it was..? (When he broke it down in cost to the "taxpayer?) A healthy long lifer needing assistance in latter years, takes no more out of the "pot" than someone in ill health subjected to constant NHS treatment with a shorter life expectancy...

Made sense to me!

 

[Brunneria]

But the long and short of it was..? (When he broke it down in cost to the "taxpayer?) A healthy long lifer needing assistance in latter years, takes no more out of the "pot" than someone in ill health subjected to constant NHS treatment with a shorter life expectancy...

Made sense to me!

Makes perfect sense to me too (so long as the pension costs are factored in) - the relevant bit being the numbers involved, and whether those 'healthy in decline' are receiving all sorts of extra costs (such as statins) which drain money, with no actual benefit. Especially if they are actually causing contraindications which then need treatment...

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

I love the idea of people living so long is a financial burden akin to the cost of one particular medical problem. Diabetes UK have a report which looks at the cost of introducing faster response times to diabetic medical problems, improved foot care and better education and compares it to the savings being made. In my opinion, interesting reading. https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Documents/Diabetes UK Cost of Diabetes Report.pdf

 

[Paul59]

The thing that gets me. They mainly blame it on obesity, now,maybe if certain bodies had not told us that "Fat was bad", which we all know is wrong, all those years ago, people would not have been pushed into eating carbs & the increased glucose that goes with it, then obesity would have most likely been at lot less thus being healthier with far less type 2 & less money having to be spent on the issues. So really the bodies that be are in fact the ones responsible for the increased cost & people poorer health.