Is British-Style Health Care The Answer?

(CBS)  Mary Brewis has been battling colon cancer for 6 years.

She's still alive because of the care she got under Britain's National Health System, and more recently, in spite of that same system's bureaucratic rules.

"I really thought it would care for me from cradle to grave," Brewis said.

Like everyone here - Brewis is automatically covered by public health insurance.

"All that treatment, the surgery, and the consulting and the hospital stays - you didn't put out money for that?" asked CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer.

"No, no," Brewis said. 'That was all on the National Health."

The NHS was set up 60 years ago to guarantee that everyone in the United Kingdom would have health care, but over the years complaints have grown over long waits and poor service.

Under fierce pressure to improve - the NHS annual budget was tripled over the past decade. Now, Britain spends just over $2,700 per person on health care, compared to an average $6,700 in the U.S. And a recent survey shows 90 percent of British patients rated their NHS care as good to excellent.

But it's not perfect, as Brewis discovered when the cancer spread to her lungs, and the NHS said it wouldn't pay for an experimental drug to shrink her tumors.

"You get people who are desperate for the best drug that is available worldwide," said Michael Summers, the vice-chairman of the Patients Association. "But the government body has said, 'Hey, look, we can't always afford these drugs.' Because it might extend your life by six months, but is it going to save your life? This sort of attitude can creep in. It is most unfortunate and heart rending."

Brewis has lost two appeals so far, and had to borrow money to pay almost $2,000 a week for the drug - and a private nurse.

"The time that I have left with my family is very, very precious, and what makes it very difficult is that we are now, as a couple, as a family, are spending virtually all our time trying to fight this bureaucracy," Brewis said.

Dr. Karol Sikora, a British cancer specialist, became the unknowing poster boy for a series of ads made by a U.S. lobby group opposed to public health insurance. In fact, Dr. Sikora does believe in Britain's universal public system, but he says it can be wasteful, inefficient and unfair.

"If I could chose one system today, I would chose the British system over the American, if I was an average American," Sikora said. "Having said that, I think there is a huge opportunity for the Obama administration to design something that is completely novel."

Sikora advocates a mixture of public and private insurance - the competition acting to ensure efficiency and make sure cost-cutting doesn't deny patients like Brewis innovative drugs.

"I just, I feel I have a right to live as long as I can possibly live," Brewis said. "Everybody does. Nobody should be allowed to say that somebody has lived long enough and they can't live any longer."

No one would argue with that - the constant challenge is to deliver on a limited budget.

[rlindley0]

This report was biased as it compared the British National Health Service to US health care. It showed a patient denied an experimental drug for treatment of terminal cancer. The report should have included the information that practically all US health plans and US health insurance bureaucrats would also have denied coverage for an experimental drug treatment for a similar patient.

[snoopy28173]

I hope we NEVER get universial health care. I have multiple condations that all require medical treatment. One can need treatment urgently, and being put on the wait list could be fatal. $2,700 would not even scratch the surface of my care.

Besides, who is the goverment to play judge, jury, and executioner with health care?

Something needs to be done to reign in the costs, but not by universial health care.

[John_Merritt]

Having worked in the healthcare industry for a LONG TIME, i want to make a recommendation that no one has proposed yet. I propose that we cut out the middle man (health care providers) altogether and deal or contract directly with the hospitals, who can create their own hospital network health care plans more efficiently and effectively.

Everybody benefits, reduces red tape, reduces fraud, reduces approvals, and increases the revenues directly generated by hospitals and reimbursement issues can be mediated more effectively.

Oh by the way, the consumer will pay far less, there will be greater system efficiencies because hospitals have a direct responsibility and accountability to their own 'shareholders'. It is not that difficult and is a win-win for everyone except for one group: Health care insurers. Too bad, so sad.

[John_Merritt]

Having worked in the healthcare industry for a LONG TIME, i want to make a recommendation that no one has proposed yet. I propose that we cut out the middle man (health care providers) altogether and deal or contract directly with the hospitals, who can create their own hospital network health care plans more efficiently and effectively.

Everybody benefits, reduces red tape, reduces fraud, reduces approvals, and increases the revenues directly generated by hospitals and reimbursement issues can be mediated more effectively.

Oh by the way, the consumer will pay far less, there will be greater system efficiencies because hospitals have a direct responsibility and accountability to their own 'shareholders'. It is not that difficult and is a win-win for everyone except for one group: Health care insurers. Too bad, so sad.

[thatchmo62]

I'm not sure I beleive the 90% rating or good or excellent. Just read the comments sections on any healthcare related story in British news sites. Most of the comments are from British citizens complaining about their lousy health care, the long waits and especially, the beauracracy. What we need to do is look at the all of the healthcare systems in the world and figure out what works and what doesn't. If the Irish system is so responsive, as one poster claims, what makes it work where the other systems don't? The bottom line is that we need to cover all of our citizens with basic healthcare at affordable costs.

[rdupuy11]

The system is absolute garbage and Obama isn't even going to fix it, but make it worse.

When you are 'covered' under private health insurance, that gives you the right to pay $200 per month into a system, and not use it.

You cannot use it because you cannot afford the deductable and 20% co-pay, especially when you realize the amount you pay is inflated for the insurance rate, compared to the cash rate. In other words, you still pay 20% out of pocket, in theory, and about 40% of the cash rate, which you can no longer afford because $200 per month is already draining your budget.

And Obama was clear, even if you didn't quite catch it...in his town hall meeting, he is going to force the insurance carriers to cover pre-existing, and in exchange for that, he is going to deliver young people - their heads on a platter.

The reason is, its a bad deal, to pay $200 per month, $2400 per year, for insurance, when you cannot use it.

Its a horrible deal for young people, thats why they go uninsured...1, they are generally healthy, and 2, $2400 in cash, buys you a whole lot more actual health coverage than insurance does.

But he's going to require by law for people who don't need health insurance to join the system, because this is where the money is comign from to pay for the pre-existing.

Yes, he was quite clear about it.

Don't be confused, they aren't...they know exactly that young people need less health insurance than the elderly...most and I mean the vast majority of costs in the system are from 2 areas...preventable sicknesses, mostly related to obesity, and end of life care.

This massive tax on the young, is going to make things hard.

We don't need a system that 'technically' covers people. At least devise a system, where at least I can actually go to the Doctor.

I'm an american, when I need dental, I just get my teeth removed, I cannot afford bridges and other expensive things. When I had an ear infection, I just waited painful weeks for it to go away, who can afford to get antibiotics, when it takes a Doctor's visit to get a prescription.

Thats the reality for 10's of millions.

[riddelup]

Try getting your HMO to pay for an experimental drug or procedure. Not only that but your HMO usually has limits on legitimate non experimental treatments.

[whatsup49]

ya know, we sorta kinda already have universal health care system in place for our military and military retirees. my dad is an air force retiree with 40 years of service, and he never, ever has had to wait for medical care through the military hospital where he lives. whenever he's in the hospital, all he pays is $6.95 per day, and that is for his meals. when he was critical and on a respirator and unable to eat, he wasn't charged. his meds for his heart, diabetes and other ailments, and their related equipment, such as a glucose monitor, strips, and insulin needles, are free. his wife, my stepmother, receives her care through tricor. she has a primary care doctor, plus specialists, and never pays more than $15 for a doctor visit, and most of her meds are filled at the base hospital, for very low copays. the meds that are filled at off-base pharmacies cost about $15 each. when she was critically ill a number of years ago, she was hospitalized off-base for nearly 4 months. the cost to my parents, $1,000 copay for the entire time she was hospitalized.

if this works well for our military and retirees, why can't a similar plan work for everyone else?

[govtguy]

Isn't it a total shame and public embarassment nationally, that for all the "brains" we have elected to serve US; these arguments still exist? Would it not be smarter, practical, logical, efficient, etc, to merge the best of the programs or at least willingly and honestly sit and act, even on a temporary measure? Obviously the needs of the politicians and the drug and insurance companies come before the needs of the people. Please Mr President, lock these folks in a large room, with no food, water, or restroom, and see how fast they can come up with a viable plan; afterall its been over 50 plus years in the works!

[getg]

As an American citizen currently living in France I can tell you that it is possible to have a functioning medical system that covers all and has choice and quality treatment. We have it here but you don't hear much about it because it is France and the prejudice about anything French runs deep in America. However, similar to Canada, we pay a social tax which is dependent on income (fair) and get coverage that pays more for serious illness and less for elective or non-serious illness (moral and ethical). We have choice and no government person decides, it is your doctor and you. If everyone is in a similar system, then the need for emergency room care for a bad cold is non-existent. The system negotiates far lower prices for the same drugs we have in America but at a fraction of the cost. It is sad that the mis-information surrounding this topic is so great for so long that so many people believe the propaganda circulated by pharma companies, insurance companies, and fools on the right who have no idea what they are talking about.
Private insurance in America is the tax you are already paying and it runs into thousands a year to have. Then you fight with the insurance company you paid and hopefully you have never had an existing condition that might invalidate your coverage. If you are lucky enough to have this high priced flawed insurance, and then you get sick, you will lose it immediately after treatment. Then what???