Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2008;336:1105 (17 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.39563.493218.AD (published 6 May 2008)
Karen Bloor, researcher
1 Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York YO10 5DD
keb3@york.ac.uk
Decisions not to fund some treatments under the NHS have been vigorously contested. James Gubb (doi: 10.1136/bmj.39563.453183.AD) argues that patients should be able to buy such treatments privately, but Karen Bloor believes this will undermine the whole health system
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Top-up fees in the National Health Service may sound harmless—surely if patients pay the additional cost of treatments not available on the NHS, they benefit without causing anyone else harm? But explored more carefully this simply is not the case.
Firstly, treatment within a publicly funded NHS should not provide what patients want, but what they need. Need for a treatment implies capacity to benefit from that treatment,1 which means that the treatment must be effective. Within scarce NHS resources, there is also a requirement for treatments to be cost effective and to provide value for money, and it is this requirement that creates the rationing problem in health care. Treatments that offer a relatively small benefit or a low probability of benefit may be worthwhile to an individual, but collectively they have an opportunity cost, in terms of other uses of NHS resources, that is too high.
Although individually
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses