To Bupa or not to Bupa?

17/4/2012

Squeamish Louise wants to pick your brains Image: Erich Ferdinand

I have a new job. This is a cause of much excitement, because it’s something I want to do, in an organisation I admire – and while I might be paid more elsewhere, the benefits are great. But one of these benefits has given me a slight quandry: should I take private health cover?

If I want it I can have Bupa cover for me and my partner, for free (you pay tax on the cover, so it’s not completely without cost).

My feelings about the NHS, and introducing market forces into healthcare, have been documented here before. So would that make me a hypocrite to take it?

What if something happened to one of us? If my partner got ill and could have had better private care than he could on the NHS I know I would be angry with myself for not taking it when I had the chance.

But the wider picture includes NHS consultants doing private work on the sides, and private patients using facilities that would otherwise be available to NHS patients.

While trying to make up my mind, I’ve learned a few new things. Bupa doesn’t have any shareholders, so its profits are all re-invested in the organisation. It’s also older than the NHS, as it was set up in 1947 as a health insurance provider.

At the moment I think I am going to take the cover, but be selective about when I use it rather than going private every time one of us needs medical care. And I live in London, so that means there is a Bupa-only hospital available, rather than using up NHS beds and equipment.

But I’d like to hear what you think, and any experiences you have. Leave a comment!

Squeamish Louise

6 Comments

Not Squeamish Neil

16/4/2012 09:43:33 pm

Well, as an NHS nurse i personally dont believe private health care should be availible, at all. but it is and people want to use it.

In general private health care is very good for shortening the wait for elective procedures and outpatients issues (any medical emergencies and you will usually be sent to an NHS A&E). you will see the same consultants as in the NHS. and the hospitals are more like hotels (better food, carpets, no NHS issue pyjamas). but its exsistance means that the rich get access to healthcare over the poor.

i would say that if you want your hospital stay to be extreamly comfortable, go private, if you want it to be about getting you better as fast and professionally as possible, go NHS.

there is a great line in a book written by Dr Foxten (a former guardian colomnist and actually real medical doctor) who stated that he wouldnt trust private nurses to look after his coat whilst he went for a shit. and that although they are very good at showing you some cleavege whilst serving your merlot, in an actual medical emergency they fall flat on their perfectly manicured arses.

but then again, i am very biased

Louise link

17/4/2012 03:25:49 am

Thanks for commenting, it's really good to have the perspective of someone who works in the NHS!

It's interesting, because one of the reasons I am very tempted to take the cover is that I have that worry - "what if one of us gets cancer or another serious illness?" - but from you and from Emmeline's comment I've learnt that in fact in that case the nhs is the much better place to be.

What are your views on people using private cover for things like physiotherapy or similar? Is it a total no to all private cover for you or are there any places you could see a use for it?

not squeamish neil

18/4/2012 02:09:01 am

Personally i feel that if people didnt use private cover even for stuff like physio, it would force the Government to make the NHS the glorious shinning beacon of health care it could be with the right funding. so i personally wouldn't use private on principle, but i would never judge someone who does.

for a start, i know that my hopes for the NHS are most likely never going to happen. so perhaps my stubborn refusal to join the private healthcare bandwagon, is just pure pigheadedness.

secondly, i know how difficult waiting for these treatments can be, and when the private option is there, well if you have the money, why suffer for longer then you have to.

and thirdly, i can kind of cheat, i have friends and inside knowledge of most areas of health. if i need physio, i have 3 in my phonebook, pharmacists, got 2 of those, etc etc. so my little protest of not going private for the non emergency stuff, is tempered by the fact that i rarely need to go NHS either, i just go to my mates house.

i would agree with the commenter below that in you situation, i would take it, and use it for somethings, just research well what you do use it for, and support the NHS i everyway you can, as some people out there cant afford it, and our current government seems hell bent on destroying the only route to healthcare they have. (p.s. i know you do squeamish Louise, just advising other readersd to get out there with us and save the NHS)

Ms Emmeline Mallow

16/4/2012 09:54:30 pm

Firstly, most NHS consultants do private work alongside their NHS work at the moment and it has been that way for years. Some do their private work inside NHS hospitals and some have the use of private facilities outside the NHS entirely.

There are some issues that you will want to get sorted privately if you can. Generally things that have long waiting lists. Like, say, hernia repairs, varicose veins. The sort of irritating thing that is simple to fix, but really common so demand is high on the NHS for this stuff.

Other stuff, particularly stuff connected with cancer, is stuff that you want sorted by the NHS. They have the staff, the equipment and a set of government targets to adhere to. Private patients for cancer care are not included in the figures, so used to get pushed to the back of the queue all the time.

Sometimes, private healthcare gives you the access to all the diagnostics much faster than going the NHS route. At which point, once you know what you are dealing with, you can choose to have treatment privately or by the NHS anyway.

It's not clear cut and I can see why you find yourself in this dilemma. Personally, I'd take the private health care and then pick and choose when I use it.

Louise link

17/4/2012 03:29:08 am

Thanks, this is a really useful comment.

I was surprised to learn about the differences in treatment for things like cancer - if you believed the adverts (which obviously I don't *cough*), you'd think that private care for cancer was much better than what's available on the nhs.

I have some niggling issues with various joints and things I can never seem to get sorted on the nhs... but then they will probably qualify as a pre-existing condition and I won't get cover for them anyway!

It's a tricky issue...

Roger

19/4/2012 09:46:29 pm

This is all very interesting stuff - and it is something of a hobby horse of mine so apologies in advance as I climb on board...

First, to set the scene, I am not a medical professional (although relatives are/were) and have worked in private industry all my life so so I see myself as being reasonably detached and not having a particular axe to grind - other than a desire for a fair and just society.

Private Health Care - just remember one thing - it's a business! In general these companies are there to make a profit and, whilst you are profitable to them, they are interested in you. Elective surgery, NHS queue jumping and all that sort of thing and they are fine with that, it's statistics and they are good at that. However, come down with something chronic, a lifelong issue that is expensive to deal with and they will introduce you to these nice chaps at the...... NHS.

The problem with the current attacks on the NHS, constant harping on about poor "efficiency" and the encouragement of private involvement is that it weakens the NHS so that it becomes less and less able to "do stuff". So, when that small percentage of us get something that requires society as a whole to help because there is no profit in it for the health companies, eventually the NHS will be so weakened it won't beable to help either. At which point the politicians will rush round criticising the NHS, its managers, the boards - everyone in fact, except the architects of the problem. Themselves. We need to maintain a strong NHS - it was and still could be the envy of the world (and affordable if we weren't obsessed by low taxation and really did make everyone pay their share). I realise the Yanks don't envy it but they are a special case - even the NHS can't cope with brain donors. Interestingly, international comparisons have ranked it as one of the most cost effective health systems in the world - but we don't hear that from the politicians! Oh, and effectiveness is much more important than efficiency - doing the wrong thigs at lowest cost will show up as "efficient" but useful (=effective) it ain't.

Coming to BUPA - I am no financial expert but I make the following observations: The BUPA that treats you is a company limited by guarantee - an arrangement in common with many non-profit organisations. However, all the money seems to go back into BUPA Finance PLC who, agreed don't seem to pay dividends but buying their bonds offers good rates of interest. What this means I don't know - as I say, I am no expert but I do know a PLC is not a charity. I make two other observations, both from data available on BUPA's website: the non-executive Directors are paid £56,000 annual salary for 2 days work a month and the executive directors salaries seem to be hidden by a somewhat circular mechanism. The PLC is obliged to disclose directors "emoluments" in the annual report - the statement being that no payments were made to any directors "in their capacity as Directors of the Group". However, I can only imagine that they do not carry out their duties as directors of the company(ies?) limited by guarantee for the benefit of their health... Maybe my search is inexpert or maybe they would rather people didn't know what the full time directors get paid and focus on "surpluses" being re-invested instead.

Practically Louise, this is one of those cases where what is sensible for the individual is, sadly, at odds with what is sensible for all. Since the individuals are winning at the moment, it would be a very selfless person who put principle before family where health is concerned...

To Bupa or not to Bupa?

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Categories