The NHS Research Paper

One of the biggest obstacles to successful management of the NHS, and also to any analysis of its current well being, remains the significant lack of any valid information as to what the NHS does, how much it costs and where the money is spent. Indeed, it is perhaps surprising that 'the 1990 changes' were conceived and implemented as fast as they were, given the lack of information that was available in 1988. (Ham, 1996) Attempts were made at the start to ensure that hospitals began from a 'level playing field' so that they were in fair competition with one another, but the sometimes 10 fold differences in the early quoted costs for identical services in different hospitals had as much to do with differing costs of maintaining buildings

One of the strengths of the NHS England is residents receive free fully funded medical care that includes all medical treatment, screenings including antenatal, dental, prescriptions, specialist referrals and optometrists (NHS England, 2016). Furthermore, while being free at point of access, the NHS system is an efficient, effective, care, safe, coordinated and patient centred system that was ranked number two worldwide on equity (NHS England, 2016). Free healthcare supports Ham 's (2010) claim that being free at point of entry is a characteristic of a high performing health care system. The benefits of free healthcare were that everyone was able to get the same medical treatment.

The NHS came around in July 5, 1948. The Health Minister Aneurin (also known as Nye) Bevan purely nationalised the existing system across the UK. The groundbreaking change was to make all services freely available to everyone. Half of Scotland’s landmass was already covered by a state-funded health system serving the entire community and directly run from Edinburgh. Additionally, the war years had seen a state-funded hospital building programme in Scotland on a scale unknown in Europe. This was combined into the new NHS. Scotland also had its own individual medical tradition, this is centred on its medical schools rather than private practice. The legislation that empowered the UK to have the NHS is National Health Service Act (1948), this despite opposition from doctors, who maintained on the right to continue treating some patients privately. The NHS ensured that Doctors, hospital, dentists, opticians, ambulances, midwives and health visitors were available, free to everybody. This Reason why we have health services is because it developments a view that health care was a right, not something given unreliably by charity, also two-party’s agreement that the existing services were in a mess and had to be sorted out, it stopped financial difficulties for the voluntary hospitals and After the second world war it ensured the creation of an emergency medical service as part of the war effort

According to (LabourList, 2013) today the NHS is 69 and one fact above all others amazes its critics on the Right: it remains the only health system in the G8 providing decent, comprehensive health cover to a whole population for less than 10% of GDP.

The National health services (NHS) provides a comprehensive healthcare services across the entire nation. It is considered to be UK’s proudest institution, and is envied by many other countries because of its free of cost health delivery to its population. Nevertheless, it is often seen as a ‘political football’ as it affects all of us in some way and hence everyone carry an opinion about it (Cass, 2006). Factors such as government policies, funding, number of service users, taxation etc all make up small parts of this large complex organisation. Therefore, any imbalances within one sector can pose a substantial risk on the overall NHS (Wheeler & Grice, 2000). This essay will discuss whether the NHS aim of reducing the nations need

"The NHS is the closest thing the English have to a religion". Yet, as with all religions, informed debate is clouded by myths. The first is that the NHS does not have enough money. Spending on the NHS rose sevenfold between 1949 and 2002 (allowing for inflation) and has continued to rise since then. We can never spend "enough" on the NHS because the more we spend, the more demand there will be for healthcare.

Some of the key arguments that exist in today’s NHS are how it is organised and managed, and how it is to be funded. Should the government pay for it? Should the taxpayers pay for it? Or should it be privately run?

brought about major change in how hospital and GP services were managed. The NHS nationalised health services but local councils still ran a variety of clinics and services for children. Soon after prescription charges were introduced. The NHS helped to organise hospital services so that areas that were lacking could be identified.

Firstly,some people endorse the NHS should be abolished or privatized.It would a effective way to reduce the government spending.It can also reduce the government financial pressure,but the government saved the money which will be paid by the most of citizen.People may go bankrupt as personal cost on medical care might increase whitch exceed range they can accept range.For example,this picture shows that

Health care in the UK relies heavily on a public market rather than a private driven market; thus, giving free care to its people. NHS services are free of charge to patients in England unless stated (Department of Health, 2013). Free health care in the UK aim to prevent ill health and

This has not changed in the current NHS, albeit more values have been added to improve service delivery. The NHS remains free with the exception of some charges, such as prescriptions, optical and dental services. It covers everything from antenatal screening and routine treatments for long-term conditions, to transplants, emergency treatment and end-of-life care.

The National Health Service (NHS) was started in 1948 by Aneurin Bevan, the minister of health at the time. It was based on three core principles that still underpin the NHS today. It was set up to ensure that everyone could have access to healthcare, despite their financial circumstances (NHS 2013a). Although the NHS has achieved what it set out to do, it is now in major financial difficulty, with debt that could reach £1bn by the end of 2014 (Campbell 2014).

Another group often blocked is complementary or alternative health care practitioners. These restrictions and the insurance industry unwillingness to pay for these services, gives the physicians an almost monopolist control over health care. Providers must be able to enter the market for competition to work and there must be many providers vying for the patient. To get the most out of health insurance plans Consolidation of hospitals and multispecialty group practices increases the negotiating leverage of the group but in certain areas of the US a single large medical system has become the sole provider of major health service thereby restricting competition (Shi & Singh, 2008). This consolidation while giving the hospitals and group practice leverage when negotiating prices of supplies and services tends to increase the price of health care to the patient because there is no longer any competition (Shi & Singh, 2008). For these reason “competition will remain less effective in most health care markets, because the prerequisite for fully competitive markets are not fully met” (Federal Trade, 2004, p. 20).

In all industries, competition among businesses has long been encouraged as a mechanism to increase value for patients. In other words, competition ensures the provision of better products and services to satisfy the needs of customers (Glover & Rivers, 2009). In the health care industry, competition has an impact on many relational perspectives. There have been several studies examining the relationships between competition and quality of health care, competition and health care system costs, and competition and patient satisfaction. Some elements of competition in health care are price, quality, convenience, and superior products and

Competition in healthcare is a broad term that does not capture adequately the many variations and meanings of the term. Secondly, even when defined carefully, evaluation of the impact of competition is far from straightforward (Goddard, 2015).Many people have debated whether it’s appropriate to have competition in the healthcare industry. Claims are made at each end of the spectrum: some see competition as having no place in services aimed at protecting the sick; and others that competition is the antidote for bloated, inefficient services and even “saves lives (Goddard, 2015). It is very easy to see each end of the spectrum and how they can impact the quality of patient care.