The NHS uses Midwives to facilitate Cost-Effective Mass-Production Baby Birthing

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 20th, 2013

Week in Review

In America pregnant women see doctors.  When they go into labor they have doctors deliver their baby.  It’s not like that in Britain.  Their National Health Service (NHS) has determined it is not cost-effective to have doctors deal with pregnancies and birth.  In Britain midwives handle pregnancies and births.  Highly trained individuals who work one-on-one with pregnant women through their pregnancies, deliver their babies and attend to post-natal care.  In special birthing wards.  Or at home.  The way humans did it for hundreds of millions of years before doctors and hospitals appeared on the scene.

In America, though, women go to the hospital when they enter labor.  And have a doctor deliver their babies.  At least so far.  As Obamacare takes America towards national health care they may adopt cost-saving procedures just like the NHS.  And regulate pregnancies and births to midwives.  Where having a baby will change in the United States and become more like it is in the UK.  And be more like this (see Pregnant women ‘unsupported’ by NHS by Rebecca Smith posted 1/20/2013 on The Telegraph).

A survey in the annual state of maternity services report by the College found that four in 10 women see up to nine or 10 midwives during their pregnancy instead of being able to build a relationship and confidence in one, as is recommended.

Also one fifth of women are left alone during labour, contrary to guidelines saying women should have one to one care.

Midwives are overstretched due to a baby boom and increasing numbers of women over the age of 40 having babies who require extra care due to a high risk of complications, experts said…

“In labour the majority of women are getting high quality care that is needed to be safe but one fifth of the women we surveyed said they did not get adequate support in labour. The wards are so busy that there are occasions when midwives are not able to give women the concentrated care they would like.”

Elizabeth Duff, Senior Policy Adviser at the National Childbirth Trust, said: “Anxiety and tension about being left alone means women cannot relax and focus on their labour: this in turn leads to more use of pain-relieving drugs and higher levels of intervention, which most women wish to avoid so that they are well and fit to start caring for their baby after the birth…”

The majority of women are getting high quality care that is needed to be safe.  And when that quality level falls a little and they complain too much they give them pain-relieving drugs.  To quiet them down.  So they can return to the business of mass-production baby birthing.  The cost-effective way.  And soon to be the Obamacare way.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

To Cut Costs the NHS encourages Women to just Take the Pain of Natural Childbirth

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 2nd, 2012

Week in Review

The American Left says the Republicans hate women.  The so-called war on women.  They want to force women back into dangerous back-alleys for abortions.  And take away their birth control.  But imagine the tune the Left will be singing when Obamacare catches up to the NHS.  And scrambles to find cost savings via rationing.  And asks women to ‘man-up’ and just take the pain of natural childbirth.  When their liberal Democrat-passed Obamacare has no choice but to do what the NHS is doing (see Caesareans and pain relief for mothers giving birth ‘should be cut to save the NHS money’ by Sophie Borland posted 8/30/2012 on the Daily Mail).

Family doctors are being told to try to talk women out of having Caesareans and very strong painkillers during birth to save the NHS money.

New guidelines drawn up for GPs urge them to encourage women to have natural labours with as little medical help as possible…

The guidelines also remind doctors to tell women to consider having their babies outside hospital in midwife-run units or in their own homes.

Caesareans cost the NHS around £1,200 a time while epidurals – anaesthetic injections into the spine – are around £200.

Giving birth is the most painful thing a human body can endure.  While being one of the most natural things as well.  For millennia women gave birth without Caesarean sections or epidurals.  So on the one hand you can see the cost-accounting logic of the NHS.  While on the other hand about half of the world’s population doesn’t give birth.  Making it easy for them to say, “Gee, honey.  It’s just childbirth.  What’s the big deal?  Just suck it up and take the pain.”  Of course those who say something like this aloud may experience some physical pain themselves.  And may end up walking funny for awhile.

Just to show you how bad it is in the NHS lets crunch some numbers.  The UK has about 800,000 births per year as of late.  Approximately 25% of these births are by Caesareans section.  So if you crunch the numbers using current exchange rates the savings come out to approximately $379 million annually for Caesareans.  And about $253 million for epidurals.  Bringing the approximate annual savings to $632 million total.  Considering the annual NHS budget is roughly $166.6 billion these savings come to approximately 0.38% of total NHS annual expenditures.  Less than one half of one percent.  Small.  But when you add a lot of these up (and there are a lot of them because the NHS pays for everything for everyone) it makes a significant savings in the aggregate.  Which is why they’re asking British women to take the pain.

Now some can make the argument that making a woman give birth naturally is actually more painful that requiring a woman to buy her own birth control.  Or pay for her own abortion.  But the Left attacks Republicans on these issues as if the affect on women is as traumatic as live childbirth without any pain medication.  Makes one wonder what the attacks will be like when they urge women to endure more pain to help balance the Obamacare budget.  Especially considering that based on population there will be five times as many US women giving birth than in the UK.  So there will be larger cost savings available.  And probably a louder screaming will be heard.  Both figuratively.  And literally.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The NHS works to Reduce Post-Caesarean Infections because they’re not Cost-Effective

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 4th, 2012

Week in Review

Birth by caesarean section is now 25% of all births in the UK.  Reasons being obesity and women waiting until later in life to have their babies.  And now infections from caesareans are on the rise.  And they’re making these women costly patients.  First the childbirth.  Then the infection.  Consuming two rounds of medical treatments for one childbirth.  And that’s just not good for the business of health care (see Caesarean sections result in infections for one in ten patients, study finds by Denis Campbell posted 7/31/2012 on The Guardian).

One in 10 women who have a baby by caesarean section go on to develop an infection around their scar, which causes them pain and discomfort and forces some to go back into hospital to be treated…

While many of the infections following a caesarean are minor, some are so serious that they affect deep tissues or internal organs, including the lining of the womb…

The number of women giving birth by caesarean section has risen sharply, from 9% in 1980 to 25% in 2009-10, partly as a result of increasing maternal obesity and the trend towards later motherhood…

Dr Elizabeth Sheridan, head of healthcare associated infections at the Health Protection Agency, said the study showed that the NHS should make reducing post-caesarean infections a priority. “Given that one in four women deliver their baby by caesarean section, these infections represent a substantial burden. They will impact not only directly on the mother and her family but also are a significant cost in terms of antibiotic use, GP time and midwife care, and every effort should be made to avoid them”, she said.

In America the proponents of a national health care system like to point to people using the emergency room for their health care.  Because emergency rooms can’t deny treatment.  And when these people don’t pay we all end up paying for it.  So we need a national health care system to fix that.  They also like to pick on the ‘greedy’ pharmaceutical companies who make those life saving drugs no one else but them can make.  But they don’t talk about people exceeding their quota of health care services.

In a national health care system funded by the taxpayer medical care transforms into cost management.  For the usual reasons.  An aging population has more people leaving the workforce than entering the workforce.  And those leaving the workforce consume the majority of the health care services.  So you have the demand for health care services increasing (retirees suffering the effects of aging) while the supply is decreasing (fewer people paying taxes to fund health care services).   So there’s rationing.  Doctors talk about excessive antibiotics consumed by patients.  And the need to reduce the amount of time a patient takes up with doctors and midwives (people who provide care during pregnancies and deliver babies).  Because post-caesarean infections are simply not cost-effective.

Obamacare, too, will transform medical care into cost management.  By using mandates to get more people to pay into the system.  And then having medical boards to ration treatment.  Which they will have to do because America has an aging population, too.  And its population is greater than the UK’s population.  About five times greater.  So if the NHS is rationing care Obamacare will ration care.  And they’ll start tracking the amount of antibiotics a patient gets.  As well as how much time they get to spend with doctors and other health care providers.  Because health care is money.  And when you’ve had your fair share that’s it.  No more health care for you.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,