- Messages
- 1,608
- Type of diabetes
- Family member
- Treatment type
- I do not have diabetes
This was in the news yesterday: Former health secretaries and charities call for cross-party health and care review
From the article:
However, with inpatient costs at £8bn in 2012 for people with type 2 diabetes, it makes sense that some things need to be revisited. Diabetes bankrupting the NHS sounds like something you'd read in the DM, for sure. However, perhaps people with non-insulin dependent type 2 diabetes could be given better access to testing equipment? That could help prevent complications, surely? That's just one of many areas that could be discussed (for example).
Before committing, we'd like to put this to the community: Should there be a cross-party health and care review?
Please vote (and comment if appropriate) - it will directly affect the Diabetes.co.uk position. The NHS is an amazing service and we are very lucky to have it - anything we can do to help is definitely a good thing.
From the article:
In August 2015, a Diabetes UK report claimed that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes could bankrupt the NHS. There has been a 60 per cent rise in diabetes cases in the last 10 years - the majority of cases are type 2 - while the risk of long-term complications make diabetes an expensive condition to treat.
The charity also identified that more people with diabetes should receive the necessary health checks recommended by the National Institute of Health Care and Excellence (NICE).
Only a third of people with diabetes in the UK currently receive all eight checks; including weight, blood pressure and foot care, and their report highlighted that the burdensome cost of diabetes can largely be attributed to standards of care.
Dr. Partha Kar, advisor to NHS Survival - a non-profit umbrella group that has called for an independent commission into NHS spending - told Diabetes.co.uk: "We are treating more and more complications rather than trying to prevent them.
"The response from the government should be: 'Can we use all the money left in the pot left for diabetes careand know what we need to do? We know how we can improve care.' But this isn't happening."
We have been asked whether Diabetes.co.uk support a cross-party review into the NHS. Our initial understand is yes - the NHS is literally heaven on earth (how lucky we are to not be in situations where you need medical insurance) and if this would help improve the NHS, we're all for it. The charity also identified that more people with diabetes should receive the necessary health checks recommended by the National Institute of Health Care and Excellence (NICE).
Only a third of people with diabetes in the UK currently receive all eight checks; including weight, blood pressure and foot care, and their report highlighted that the burdensome cost of diabetes can largely be attributed to standards of care.
Dr. Partha Kar, advisor to NHS Survival - a non-profit umbrella group that has called for an independent commission into NHS spending - told Diabetes.co.uk: "We are treating more and more complications rather than trying to prevent them.
"The response from the government should be: 'Can we use all the money left in the pot left for diabetes careand know what we need to do? We know how we can improve care.' But this isn't happening."
However, with inpatient costs at £8bn in 2012 for people with type 2 diabetes, it makes sense that some things need to be revisited. Diabetes bankrupting the NHS sounds like something you'd read in the DM, for sure. However, perhaps people with non-insulin dependent type 2 diabetes could be given better access to testing equipment? That could help prevent complications, surely? That's just one of many areas that could be discussed (for example).
Before committing, we'd like to put this to the community: Should there be a cross-party health and care review?
Please vote (and comment if appropriate) - it will directly affect the Diabetes.co.uk position. The NHS is an amazing service and we are very lucky to have it - anything we can do to help is definitely a good thing.