I couldn't agree more. It's a no-brainer when you consider that, in most cases, the gap between the "top up payment" and the actual cost will be smaller than the amount the NHS will save long-term on treating complications etc.On the topic of available solutions in the UK, this is also what drives me nuts. Most of the more interesting developments in D care are made available in the U.S. And other EU countries precisely because they have medical insurance and this stuff is, in reality, quite expensive. I think the model in the UK should be that the NHS provides free at the point of use care, e.g. you can get the base insulins required, MDI, maybe pumps, etc, but there should be "top up insurance" that allows access to the more advanced and expensive treatments, CGM, Afrezza, Symlin, etc.
I know loads of people hate this idea, but I think it works and would allow non-essential other medical procedures to be undertaken not at the taxpayers expense.
Basically, I didn't understand the way the system works at this clinic. The letter says "under the care of" and mentions a name. This is the senior consultant and not who you will see. Your file is put into one of the present doctors pigeon holes and that's who you see.
You then find out when they call you in. At arrival you can request who you see, so I will do this next time. As I was diagnosed a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, and care has changed a lot in that time, I'm getting to grips with the way this clinic works.
On the topic of available solutions in the UK, this is also what drives me nuts. Most of the more interesting developments in D care are made available in the U.S. And other EU countries precisely because they have medical insurance and this stuff is, in reality, quite expensive. I think the model in the UK should be that the NHS provides free at the point of use care, e.g. you can get the base insulins required, MDI, maybe pumps, etc, but there should be "top up insurance" that allows access to the more advanced and expensive treatments, CGM, Afrezza, Symlin, etc.
I know loads of people hate this idea, but I think it works and would allow non-essential other medical procedures to be undertaken not at the taxpayers expense.
I would have loved to have had discussions, and learnt more from hospitals years ago, but the problem then was time, and consultants are much more time limited now than they were 35 years ago - to offer any new treatment might possibly lead to savings down the line, but the savings would have to be so clear that the extra time and monitoring to bring them in would have to be justified. There just are not enough diabetologists, as far as i can see. A patient may be able to buy some of the consultants time at a private hospital, but i cant see how there could be a two tier system in an NHS hospital, with patient A buying extra time than patient B. I think we just differ in our views! Re Symlin, years ago, when the news came out that most Types ones were lacking in amylin, and C-peptide, and maybe other things, i asked my consultant and was told that they had done research and had not found it what had been hoped. I do not know the situation now, I think i read of ongoing safety issues for some re lows? I think the NHS is rather careful re what new developments come in. For instance, pumps virtually stopped in the UK for some years, as far as i recall, due to trials that found there were significant dangers, and they did not get started properly until later than a lot of other countriesThere is always a queue of people waiting Ann, but if it is a teaching and research hospital, those working there should be involved. If there are methods of helping reduce long term complications and therefore cost of care, should there not be a business case to use them? As @pinewood says, the empirical evidence from the U.S. Shows huge benefits in control of bg variance with Symlin so why wouldn't we want access to it. What is wrong with the idea of top up insurance if things are going to be unavailable on the NHS? It gives greater access to those with lower incomes than simply saying self fund.
I agree with a much of the above - the uk is, or has been, slow to bring in new ideas, especially re diabetes, even when it has been involved in the initial research. Also, at least in the past, any benefit had to be justified in financial terms - a big improvement in quality of life alone did not seem to be taken into account much. But i do think this is a lot about shortage of time/money/ doctors- implementing different treatment takes more patient supervision, money etc.@ann34+ I think one of the side effects of the NHS is that new treatments take a lot longer to be made available. In countries where it is down to health insurance to pay, new treatments are typically accessible relatively quickly after approval. In the UK there has to be a clinical study that demonstrates that in a significantly representative percentage of the users a benefit is seen. Even then, if existing treatments are being used successfully, the new ones will not be made available without a massive fight on behalf of the end user.
Likewise, as a government entity (no matter how you look at it) the safety of a solution is given additional scrutiny as the ultimate payout of a class action for lack of safety is the government and they have far too large a wallet to aim at.
As a result we are left with a system that works fine in the case where Mr and Mrs normal go and see a doctor and need dealing with according to standard guidelines however, if we want to take advantage of treatments that have demonstrated benefits in other countries, we are hamstrung by the red tape and unable to do anything unless it is entirely out of our own pocket. We cannot use any kind of insurance or part payment scheme to assist with that.
It's not about access to the doctors themselves, it's about access to the new ways of dealing with out condition as a T1 in which I find my frustration.
@ann34+, I'm effectively in the position of topping up my NHS care out of my own pocket. The Abbott Libre is CGM lite, and the reason I signed up was the low cost of entry unlike the Dexcom, which I first looked at a couple of years ago.
The injection ports are also something I pay for. They reduce the number of skin penetrations by a factor of 30-50, much like a pump does, meaning injection/infusion sites should remain good for longer.
My experience with both these items has been limited promotion or no knowledge within the NHS simply because there is no NICE approval for either. As a result, those less tenacious in their desire and ability to research better treatment options just don't know about them. Do I like the injection ports? Yes, very much so.
Not particularly helpful unless they explained why? I was talking to an American T1 on a flight a while ago and she had been taking Symlin for 6 months. She said her postprandial levels are never above 8 on Symlin and that she eats a particularly unhealthy diet. There are countless over stories across the net.The one I'd say was most interesting is Symlin. The reason that we don't see it in use in the UK is that it isn't licensed here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?