National Health Service Treatment for Health Conditions - Literature review Example

National Health Service Treatment for Health Conditions Student’s Name Subject Professor University/Institution Location Date Outline 1. Introduction A. Constituents of NHS B. Source of funding C. Examples of lifestyle related infections 2. NHS expenditure on diseases A. Amounts that are spend on diabetes, heart disease and obesity increasing rate B. Unhealthy lifestyles, their health consequences and costs to the UK government 3. Re-evaluation of NHS treatment rights A. Causes of diseases B. Laxity among people C. Bases of re-evaluation D. Insignificance of re-evaluation 4. Withdrawal of state healthcare A. Potential consequences B. Potential benefits National Health Service Treatment for Health Conditions Introduction National Health Service consists of three publicly financed healthcare structures in the UK which are English NHS, NHS Wales and NHS Scotland. These structures receive their finances mainly from general taxation instead of asking for insurance payments. They give a wide variety of health services, a big percentage of which are not charged to nationals of the UK. Each structure functions on its own and is politically answerable to the pertinent government. NHS treatment for health conditions like diabetes and heart disease, which are time and again the consequence of personal lifestyle choices in relation to not doing exercise and poor diet, costs taxpayers in the UK so much money every year (Wright 2011, p.27). Despite this, treatment for such conditions should continue being free. NHS expenditure on diseases According to Schäfer & Hansen (2011, p.80), in the United Kingdom, diabetes is treated completely by the NHS. The organization gives structured care to people suffering from all types of diabetes, at all stages. The expenditure on diabetes by the NHS comes to an estimate of over 1.5 million pounds every single hour or 10 per cent of the total budget of NHS for Wales and England which is equivalent to more than 25,000 pounds being spend every minute on the disease. In total, approximately 14 billion pounds is used every year by NHS in treating diabetes along with its complications. The expenditure on complications represents the much upper cost. Surprisingly, the incidence of this health condition is on the increase and is supposed to go up to 4 million people by 2025 (Schäfer & Hansen 2011, p.80). Haldiya & Sachdev say that, people are aware that the burden of health conditions like heart disease, diabetes and cancer could be lessened or even eliminated with correct lifestyles like avoiding smoking and alcohol, doing more exercises and enhancing their diet. However, they do not put that into practice. People’s lifestyle choices are costing the UK government, with a lot of money being spent in the treatment of diseases which may be avoided if people choose healthier lifestyles. Campaigns on the prevention of the main killer diseases in the United Kingdom have been conducted enough times but people do not seem to change at all. This is shown by the increasing prevalence of such infections (Haldiya & Sachdev 2010, p.191). Re-evaluation of NHS treatment rights According to Folland, Stano & Goodman (2004, p.112), NHS offers free treatment to all people in the United Kingdom irrespective of the kind of health condition one might be suffering from. Every UK citizen is entitled to such health services and even foreigners who live in the country for over 12 months also benefit from the system. Smoking leads to diseases like coronary heart disease and lung cancer which are some of the major killer diseases in the UK. In other words, once a person contracts heart disease or cancer, he or she survives on treatment and chemotherapy for the better part of his or her life. The cost of treating such conditions is very high and is all catered for by the NHS. Moreover, taking alcohol increases the chances of suffering from heart and liver disease, while lack of exercise and poor diet results in obesity. As much as diabetes is a hereditary infection, obese people stand a higher chance of ailing from the disease (Folland, Stano & Goodman 2004, p.112). The fact that, the treatment for the above infections which are mainly dependent on people’s lifestyles is provided free of charge by the NHS, may be the major cause of laxity to refrain from unhealthy behaviors among citizens in the UK. People have stopped to care whether they get sick or not out of their bad habits. This is because; if they get sick, they will receive free treatment without spending a single pound from their own pockets. Diagnosis, treatment and drugs for most killer diseases are very expensive and hence the reason why the UK government is forced to spend a big percentage of its taxation revenue on health services especially to patients suffering from diabetes, heart disease, cancer or liver disease (Donaldson 2008, p.9). On this perspective, there is need to re-evaluate NHS treatment rights for United Kingdom’s nationals. It is important to assess the kind of people who mostly benefit from such rights and whether they are worth the rights. The assessment on people should be done on the basis of income levels and what such people are doing in reducing the risk of suffering from cancer, heart disease and diabetes among other ailments. By doing so, the government will be able to ascertain whether such people deserve the free health services or they should be left to pay for their health needs. Moreover, re-evaluation should be done on the costs that the NHS incurs to provide free healthcare, its cost to the economy of the UK and the potential benefits of the services to the people of UK and the country as a whole. On the contrary, a re-evaluation of the treatment rights especially to a point where all people are not entitled to free treatment regardless of the kind of disease they may be suffering from is not right. Stewart, Jenkins & Buchan (2009, p.361) maintain that, though obesity results from eating junk foods, there are other factors like genes which cannot be controlled. Furthermore, adverts on foods like French fries, chicken and cakes make people desire such foods and end up buying them. Therefore, advertisements can be blamed for increasing obesity. More so, not all people have knowledge on health eating; some eat junk food out of ignorance. Additionally, most schools do not provide students with a balanced diet especially government schools and hence, they do not have choice. In other words, obesity is caused by so many other factors which are out of people’s control. Therefore, re-evaluation is not necessary; people need to be treated for free. Campaigns should also be done among less learned people, on the health benefits of exercise to help persuade people to do exercise on a regular basis in order to less cases of obesity. In addition, advertisements through the media on alcohol and cigarette smoking are influencing people to lead unhealthy lifestyles. Although the adverts give warning of excessive drinking or smoking, they do not explain the real consequences of such habits and thus people do not take caution. Moreover, the health services that are rendered by the NHS are funded by the UK government through the revenue that is earned from taxation. Therefore, UK nationals ought to be entitled to free treatment rights because they are the same people who provide money to support the provision of the services. To some extent, the treatment is not free as such because, citizens pay taxes. Withdrawal of state healthcare State healthcare should not be withdrawn on individuals who have chosen to engage into habits which have ruined their health like smoking, taking alcohol and not working out. These three habits are the main causes of killer diseases which take the biggest shares of NHS expenditure. Tercyak & Tyc (2006, p.752) assert that, withdrawing free healthcare from such people may not lessen government expenditure on healthcare. If anything, it may add more costs to the UK government. A large number of people who depend on NHS free treatment are those from middle and low income families. Rich people go to private hospitals for treatment, some even have personal doctors. Denying needy people the services will complicate their health status or lead to other infections since they may not afford to pay for their healthcare and thus free treatment is necessary. According to Whynes (2011, p.1705), the UK government should instead devise ways of controlling such habits like providing more jobs especially for the youth to keep them occupied. When people are busy, they will have less time to smoke or drink. Poor living standards for people with low incomes create a room for drinking and smoking of even hard drugs, because people are so idle. Again, some do not get the opportunity to go to school and thus they are ignorant about the health effects of smoking and alcohol. In this case, the government is to blame for not improving the living standards of these individuals and not providing free education for everyone to acquire knowledge. Therefore, the government should continue providing such people with free treatment. On the other hand, withdrawing free health services that are provided by NHS from people who smoke, drink or do not engage in exercises may be helpful. Doing so may act as a way of showing people how harmful such habits may be to their health as well as how their habits are costly to the government and are hindering other development initiatives. This may result in some people refraining from such habits having in mind the high costs that are involved in treating smoking, alcohol and obesity related infections which may not even afford. Conclusion NHS is funded through tax revenue and offer free health services to all people in the United Kingdom. The prevalence of infections like diabetes, heart disease and cancer depend on people’s lifestyles and consumes much of NHS’ expenditure because their treatment is very costly. Re-evaluating NHS’ healthcare rights to UK citizens is not necessary because it is the same citizens who fund the services through taxes. Some people engage in smoking or drinking secretly and identifying all the victims may be tricky. Withdrawing state healthcare from individuals who engage in habits that harm their health like smoking, lack of workouts and drinking may not help reduce government’s costs on healthcare. Advertisements, poor diet in schools and ignorance lead to unhealthy lifestyles. Therefore, all UK citizens should receive free treatment under the NHS. List of References Donaldson, C 2008, Why a National Health Service ? : the economic rationale, London, Institute for Public Policy Research. Folland, S, Stano, M & Goodman, AC 2004, The economics of health and health care, Upper Saddle River, Pearson Prentice Hall. Haldiya, KR & Sachdev, R 2010, Lifestyle-related risk factors for cardiovascular disease, Current Science , 99 (2), 190-195. Schäfer, W & Hansen, J 2011, Priorities for health services research in primary care, Quality in Primary Care , 19 (2), 77-83. Stewart, S, Jenkins, A & Buchan, S 2009, The current cost of heart failure to the National Health Service in the UK, European Journal of Heart Failure , 4 (3)361. Tercyak, K & Tyc, V 2006, Opportunities and Challenges in the Prevention and Control of Cancer and Other Chronic Diseases: Children's Diet and Nutrition and Weight and Physical Activity, Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 31 (8), 750-763. Whynes, D K 2011, Towards an evidence-based National Health Service, Economic Journal , 106 (439), 1702-1712. Wright, J 2011, Regulatory Capitalism and the UK Labour Government's Reregulation of Commissioning in the English National Health Service, Law & Policy , 33 (1), 27-59. Read More