Picture
Early in 2012 TEK reported on the plight of many women in the UK who had PIP breast implants. Whilst some had undergone surgery for these implants due to a cosmetic reason, some had done so following treatment for breast cancer.

However patients had come by these PIP breast implants though they were bad news. It was reported that they contained a low grade of silicone and could cause health problems. As the mainstream media reported world wide many of the women involved became extremely anxious. That was understandable. Initially the private clinics in the NHS where some women had received the PIP implants refused to act.

There was an outcry and a great deal of publicity and then the story faded away. That as we all know does not always mean that any issues have been resolved.

This latest report agrees that the implants are substandard but claims that they do not pose any significant health risks. The silicone used in PIP implants has been proven to be industrial grade and not suitable for use in an implant for a person.

Today the UK has published its latest findings regarding the French PIP implants. They have decided after a study that although they may carry a higher risk of rupture they do not cause cancer and are not toxic. Many women will see this as a cost ui=induced finding.

In 2010 the use of these PIP implants was banned world wide. The PIP company went bankrupt later that same year and the death of a woman in France from cancer was said to be as a result of one of these implants.

The product has caused problems in many countries. It is not approved for use in the US. The UK's latest report will not please those who feel that they have had a raw deal at the expense of PIP. NHS medical director Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, who ran the review, said, "This has been an incredibly worrying time for women."Repeated tests on different batches of PIP implants have been carried out in the UK, France and Australia according to international standards. "Those tests have shown that the implants are not toxic and therefore we do not believe they are a threat to the long-term health of women who have PIP implants".

Sadly only time will tell.

The advice for women who experience health concerns is to contact their GP. The removal of the breast implant can still take place. What however is shocking is that "so far 750 women have already, or will, have their implants removed on the NHS - 490 of whom had the implants put in at private clinics." That is a disgrace. 

Having pocketed the money for implanting the PIPs their removal should be funded by those clinics also. Of course many have claimed that the burden would mean these clinics would have to close. With a government focused on increasing private health care that is bad news.

However so is the additional burden on the cash strapped NHS.

Related reading:
http://www.tekjournalismuk.com/1/post/2012/01/harley-medical-group-pip-refusal.html 
http://www.tekjournalismuk.com/1/post/2012/1/pip-breast-implant-removals.html 
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/18/health/pip-breast-implants/ 

 
 
Picture
Previous Tory governments in the UK have always been fans of privatisation. De-regulation has carried both pros and cons. The biggest pro seems to be less expenditure for tax payers and money to be made from any market flotation. The cons have been many including a poor service, a more costlier service, a postcode lottery as far as service and cost went in the long run and in some cases chaos.

Personally this blogger was thinking of British Railways as far as chaos went. We now have the track owned by one company and many regional companies operating their own passenger services. Whilst there are now some bargain tickets to be had for many rail users in the UK prices have gone through the roof. Booking tickets can also be a nightmare and a relatively short journey the length of the UK may involve the use of various train companies and multiple changes.

Today, David Cameron had announced that the UK coalition is looking at privatising our road system. This important infrastructure would seem too important to hand over to any old Tom, Dick or Harry.  Of course when State owned services are privatised there are always big winners. These may be  the CEOs of various comoanies plus shareholders. They are more often than not rank and file Tories.

Cameron has been at pains to say that theplanned reform of the NHS is not privatisation. Many people in the UK believe that it is but in the case of the NHS that it is by "the back door". It would seem that as fr as the roads go the Coalition is at least being upfront.

Cameron announced the government plans during a speech saying, "We need to look at innovative approaches to the funding of our national roads - to increase investment to reduce congestion. "Road tolling is one option - but we are only considering this for new, not existing, capacity. For example, we're looking at how improvements to the A14 could be part-funded through tolling." Downing Street went on to insist it is not about tolls but most Brits will be saying "yeah, yeah, heard that one before".

According to Sky News Cameron went on, "The Government wants to explore the option of contracting out the maintenance and running of motorways and major A-roads to sovereign wealth funds, pension funds or other investors. In return, vehicle excise duty could be reduced and a new charge introduced that would be paid to the private companies who would take control of the roads on long leases" The new charge would be set by an independent regulator which would also monitor the companies.

His question though that, "Why is it that other infrastructure - for example water - is funded by private sector capital through privately-owned, independently regulated, utilities... but roads in Britain call on the public finances for funding?",  left this blogger close to hysteria.

Want to know Mr Cameron? Because the Uk saw sense and finally removed the Tories from office before they sold the whole country to the highest bidder. Now you are back in office, albeit as part of a coalition you re up to your old tricks. Choosing the Water Board was if I may point out a bad example. Water Rates have gone through the roof since privatisation, regional boards offer a great deal of variation in service and management of that precious commodity water is a disgrace. It is not simply weather changes that have depleted our water stocks but poor management of supplies.

Perhaps the final thought should be, will the privatisation of UK roads create jobs and wealth for the UK? Then again will the job be given to a French Company, for example, which it seems we are good at doing these days? Watch this space. The new charge would be set by an independent regulator which would also monitor the companies.

 
 
Picture
In what will be seen as a controversial move the UK is set to offer free NHS treatment for foreign nationals who have HIV. Campaigners for the move claim that the government backed initiative will in the end save money and lives. Without treatment the risk of passing HIV to others, including British citizens, will be high. At a time of budget restraints on the NHS others will see this move as yet a further strain on stretched resources.Free treatment for migrants is already in place in Scotland and Wales.

The BBC reported that,
"Public Health Minister Anne Milton said: "This measure will protect the public and brings HIV treatment in to line with all other infectious diseases. Treating people with HIV means they are very unlikely to pass the infection on to others."

Yusef Azad, director of policy at the National Aids Trust, said: "If someone is tested and treated early, it is much cheaper than them presenting themselves in hospital with a much more serious, complex condition that can cost tens of thousands of pounds to treat."

Professor Jane Anderson, chairwoman of the British HIV Association, said: "This is good news for people living in the UK who are HIV positive and also for public health in general."

Critics claim the decision could prompt so-called health tourism and put the NHS under further financial pressure.

But the government pledged tough guidance to ensure the measure is not abused.

The Department of Health said it would be difficult for somebody to come to the UK specifically for treatment as the process took months to administer and monitor.".

The Telegraph has reported the cost as, "It typically costs up to £7,000 a year to treat someone diagnosed with HIV and an average of £300,000 per patient over their lifetime with the disease".

 
 
Picture
In the UK we tend to take our National Health Service for granted. At times we all complain about it. When we receive exceptionally good treatment few of us bother to praise the NHS. After all the best should be the norm, right? Well yes but would it hurt to occasionally take a step back, take a long hard look and consider the alternative.

That said people in the UK tend to be protective of the NHS. It is a very British care system, one that may need to be tweaked from time too time, but one that few would want to wave good bye to.

David Cameron made much in his election manifesto about how the NHS was safe in his hands but he has since proved that is far from the truth. The NHS has been under attack on all fronts. Reform looks set to put funding back in GP hands. If you work for the NHS, as this blogger does, you will find that work there long enough and you will see a circle of changes. Almost 13 years down the road the latest changes are reminiscent of a few years ago.

Much is made that over paid administrator posts will be rightly cut but in reality it is front line jobs that are going. Those at the top handle the job cuts and predictably protect themselves.

The NHS is facing too many changes at one time. In order to meet demands and targets it is disappearing in a type of twilight zone. Government fines are levied against some sections, constantly making budget targets impossible to achieve.

February 8, 2012, the NHS reform was discussed in UK Parliament. The House of Lords has again rejected the bill without more amendments. The Tories though look set to continue like a dog with a bone. Labour leader, Ed Miliband, got the upper hand against Cameron the Commons, in spite of the derision and smarm eeking out of the Coalition front bench.

David Cameron's only defence seemed to be a personal attack. He attacked Mr Milband saying that Ed's position in the Labour party was fragile. We all know that attack is the poorest form of defence which this proved. Mr Cameron had little to say that was positive about the NHS reforms, so launch a personal attack on the Labour leader instead. I ask you?

Even an oped in the Financial Times agrees that the reform plans are a mess. As it says, the plans lack the necessary skill. If Cameron chooses to belligerently stay on the same NHS path it could prove to be his political downfall. Could we be so lucky?