Vote Hitlary. For your teeth.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Seven million patients can't find a dentist on the NHS for two years

By JENNY HOPE - More by this author » Last updated at 10:46am on 16th January 2008

Comments Comments (6)

Short supply: The hardest areas to find an NHS dentist are the South -West and North-West

More than seven million patients have been unable to see an NHS dentist for almost two years.

Most of those denied access have paid for private care instead, says Citizens Advice.

But almost three million have gone without treatment altogether, claims the charity.

The figure includes thousands of children and is much higher than Government estimates.

The charity is calling today for Primary Care Trusts, the bodies responsible for dentistry in England and Wales, to step up funding to improve care for NHS patients.

It cited the case of a low-income pensioner given emergency dental treatment in a hospital in North Yorkshire then told to get further treatment from one of two local NHS dentists - both of whom have 12-month waiting lists.

The charity's survey of 1,800 people, carried out by Ipsos MORI, found that lack of access was the most common reason for not seeing an NHS dentist, along with not needing treatment.

It was mentioned by one in three of those who had not seen an NHS dentist since April 2006.

Citizens Advice said the findings suggested 7.4million people had tried and failed to see an NHS dentist, with around 4.7million seeking private care instead and 2.7 million going without treatment altogether.

The worst problem areas were the South West and the North West.

Citizens Advice chief executive David Harker said: "These figures show the scale of the lack of access to NHS dentistry.

"People on low incomes are particularly affected as private treatment is just not an option."

A recent report by the Information Centre for Health and Social Care found one in three children are not seeing an NHS dentist.

Only half of adults have seen a dentist in the last two years. Another report claimed people had been forced to pull their own teeth out to save money.

The Commons health select committee is about to start an inquiry into NHS dentistry.

Health Minister Ann Keen said: "Improving access to NHS dentistry is now a national priority for the health service.

"We have made it very clear to PCTs that they must deliver year-on-year improvements.

"To support trusts, we have boosted funding by 11 per cent for 2008/09."

Mr Harker welcomed the 11 per cent rise in funding, but added that it needed "to be carefully targeted" on those areas where patients are experiencing the most acute problems.

WEAK LINK

[autiger4life 3]

Well, first of all it says the waiting list is 12 months, but also says people haven't gone in over two years. That really just doesn't make sense. I know there are times when you have to go immediately and that is the problem, but the people who haven't gone in two years doesn't make any sense.

Also, it says that the poor are the worst affected because they can't afford private treatment. Well guess who doesn't get to go to the dentist in the US? That's right the poor because they can't afford the insurance, so the poor are still getting screwed whether its their system or ours.

[Justin5 20]

Well, first of all it says the waiting list is 12 months, but also says people haven't gone in over two years. That really just doesn't make sense. I know there are times when you have to go immediately and that is the problem, but the people who haven't gone in two years doesn't make any sense.

Also, it says that the poor are the worst affected because they can't afford private treatment. Well guess who doesn't get to go to the dentist in the US? That's right the poor because they can't afford the insurance, so the poor are still getting screwed whether its their system or ours.

I agree. And I would continue your argument that while the poor there may wait for 12 months, I bet you would be hard pressed to find too many poor people here that have gone to the dentist in the last year. Here going to the dentist is almost a luxury.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Advocating a goal of everyone having good health care isn't unbalanced, it's a noble and worthy thing to shoot for. How we get there and pay for it without it becoming the mess that Canada and Britain have is the sticking point. If we can figure out a way to get everyone covered so that people aren't practically hocking their firstborn to afford insurance or just going without, I'm all for it...as long as we can also avoid the pitfalls of neverending tax increases and ridiculous waiting lists for important and common procedures.

I'm just not one of those who looks at it and says it either has to be the stupid situation we're in now, or the stupid situation Canada has. Eventually, some group of smart people will figure out a way for everyone to afford or have real access to quality health care without these problems.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

Advocating a goal of everyone having good health care isn't unbalanced, it's a noble and worthy thing to shoot for. How we get there and pay for it without it becoming the mess that Canada and Britain have is the sticking point. If we can figure out a way to get everyone covered so that people aren't practically hocking their firstborn to afford insurance or just going without, I'm all for it...as long as we can also avoid the pitfalls of neverending tax increases and ridiculous waiting lists for important and common procedures.

I'm just not one of those who looks at it and says it either has to be the stupid situation we're in now, or the stupid situation Canada has. Eventually, some group of smart people will figure out a way for everyone to afford or have real access to quality health care without these problems.

It's not a simple question of whether some group of "smart people" will figure out a way to make universal health care work. It is a fact that the US government does not have a good track record with running universal social programs. If you need proof, just look at the way Social Security & Medicare are run/funded. Also, if you've heard of some positive press clippings associated with either the VA or the Indian Health Services then please, by all means, pass them along too. Why should anyone believe that putting the federal government in total charge of all things medicine-related will lead to better system of health care delivery than we have now?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I don't think it has to be all the federal government to make it happen. There are ways to employ gov't means and the private sector to accomplish this, I believe. And it should be something we all would want to see. Why on earth would anyone want to see the current situation continue where even hard working, responsible people can't afford good coverage?

[CCTAU 3,350]

I don't think it has to be all the federal government to make it happen. There are ways to employ gov't means and the private sector to accomplish this, I believe. And it should be something we all would want to see. Why on earth would anyone want to see the current situation continue where even hard working, responsible people can't afford good coverage?

I've got good coverage. I pay for it. I may not get to go on that extra vacation or spend my money on something I WANT. But I make sure I got coverage. It's called sacrifice to do the right thing. Only about 7.5% of US citizens do not have access to health insurance. ALL (100%) have access to healthcare. Just walk into a government funded hospital and you will eventually be seen.

As for dental, I CHOOSE to pay for that also. We as Americans are so spoiled that we think the basic needs include TVs, VCRs, DVD players, A/C, a car, and even internet services. If you are one of those who can't afford coverage, get two jobs. Quit having kids. Quit blaming "THE MAN".

If you are truly destitute, then I'm sorry. But to lump the whole nation in with 7.5% of the population just to "feel" good about your own humanity is not the right way to go.

We did that once with education and integration. It did not bring the national averages up to current standards of the time. And it did not bring all students up. And we as a country paid for that for many years. Hell we are still paying for it. I would love to have the money I spend on insurance each month. But not at the cost of losing the BEST medical attention in the world. Until you have a loved one go through a series of very complex operations, you just don't know what it's like to have that freedom of going after the best doctor. If you have universal health care, there won't be any more of the BEST.

I know. I know. The only reason it hasn't worked is because we haven't tried it yet.

[channonc 466]

Recently, I have been placed into occupational therapy for a tendon injury to my finger (that required surgery to repair). Unfortunately, my injury has required much more therapy and doctor's visits than had been initially thought. Fortunately, I am on a FEP plan, so my health benefits are a LITTLE better than most corporate plans, but it is still far from wonderful coverage.

As far as this injury is concerned, my insurance company will allow me up to 75 OT visits/calendar year. I am lucky that I had the injury this past fall, as my benefits reset at the beginning of the year. My orthopedic surgeon has said I will likely need a second surgery and more OT. Again, I am lucky for the coverage I have, but I have seen others not be so lucky.

I was in therapy with another patient, her insurance (as I found out is the case with most corporate insurance policies) only allowed her to have 25 visits per year. She was far from being done with therapy (she had very limited use of her hand), but was forced to quit. Her doctor as well as the occupational therapist did submit all of the required paperwork to try to get the insurer to grant her an extension of her benefits. She was very quickly denied. The rehabilitation hospital that we were going to, told her she could pay out of pocket for her treatment, but it would be at least $300/visit and she needed at least 3 visits per week. They could not work with her on a payment plan, and she could not afford $900/week for visits and was forced to leave. Sad thing is, she ended up losing her job as a sign language translator b/c she had very limited use of one of her hands, therefore preventing her from being able to work to attempt to pay cash for her visits.

My point with all of this is to say, that as Titan stated above, healthcare issues are not a black and white problem. I agree that total universal care would probably create more problems than it solves. But I don't understand why the government can't try to make better insurance plans available at much cheaper rates than is currently available. Also, make it harder for them to deny payments on things that should be covered under your policy. These are the things that the average insured person would probably like to see changed.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I've got good coverage. I pay for it. I may not get to go on that extra vacation or spend my money on something I WANT. But I make sure I got coverage. It's called sacrifice to do the right thing. Only about 7.5% of US citizens do not have access to health insurance. ALL (100%) have access to healthcare. Just walk into a government funded hospital and you will eventually be seen.

As for dental, I CHOOSE to pay for that also. We as Americans are so spoiled that we think the basic needs include TVs, VCRs, DVD players, A/C, a car, and even internet services. If you are one of those who can't afford coverage, get two jobs. Quit having kids. Quit blaming "THE MAN".

If you are truly destitute, then I'm sorry. But to lump the whole nation in with 7.5% of the population just to "feel" good about your own humanity is not the right way to go.

We did that once with education and integration. It did not bring the national averages up to current standards of the time. And it did not bring all students up. And we as a country paid for that for many years. Hell we are still paying for it. I would love to have the money I spend on insurance each month. But not at the cost of losing the BEST medical attention in the world. Until you have a loved one go through a series of very complex operations, you just don't know what it's like to have that freedom of going after the best doctor. If you have universal health care, there won't be any more of the BEST.

I know. I know. The only reason it hasn't worked is because we haven't tried it yet.

All that ranting about TVs and VCRs have nothing to do with my point: if we can figure out a way to get everyone covered by insurance, it's a worthy goal to shoot for if it can be done without rationing and taxes that way overcompensate for any money saved on premiums.

I have insurance too. And I pay a lot for it. And we sacrifice for it to some extent. I have other friends who are responsible, hard working people. They are college educated and make decent money. And they find it difficult to pay for family coverage. It was especially bad when they were self-employed and didn't have an employer picking up the bulk of the cost. They had to settle for a much lower plan with higher deductibles. And with three kids under the age of 7, that wasn't cheap or easy. They sacrificed. Drove older cars and didn't have the latest and greatest.

You do realize that there A LOT of people who do exactly what you're saying and still find that healthcare if eating up so much of the budget that if it continues to increase in cost the way it has been, they will face some very tough choices in terms of who gets covered for what. The aren't "blaming THE MAN" for anything. They just work their asses off, don't waste money and aren't having litters of kids but still find healthcare costs are killing their budget and they worry that soon they won't be able to afford it. Or maybe they've already hit that point. You seem to have this vision in your head that anyone who complains about it is out blowing money, spending money on luxury cars (which incidentally are almost a requirement to hold a job in cities without extensive public transportation) and that's just bull****.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Everything in life is about choices. People everywhere are having to cut back. But many refuse to cut back in areas that are deemed "not necessities". I hate it for your friends. I have the same kind, but they still make choices that cause much of their problem.

And it has everything to do with TVs and VCRs. We have an entitlement attitude in this country. We think we deserve the same as the next guy. Hitlary is perfect for that. Socialism does not work. But you guys seem to think it will.

If by some outer space intervention, we can provide health care to those who can't afford it, without taking it from me, then by all means, get with the Vulcans and work it out. But the ONLY proposals that will be on the board are the ones that have me paying for others in the guise of universal health care.

And the term working their asses off means different things to most folks. Sometimes its not fun working 12 - 16 hours a day and most weekends too. But sometimes that is what you have to do until you make choices to put your family in a position that you can afford. We have stretched ourselves thin in this country. And now folks think that the gubment can step in and provide a doctor. That's fine if you only get a cold or the flu. But if you need someone to cut your ass open and work inside, you don't want someone on the gubment payroll. I see how the fed works. It ain't pretty. So you keep on looking for universal health care to save you and your friends. I'll be the one looking for a second job to insure that I have access to the best doctors in the world, if need be. It may suck, but that's how life is sometimes.

[channonc 466]

As Titan said, why does the answer have to be universal health care or keeping things the way they are?? There are a lot of other choices, and not all of them involve setting up a health care system like Canada or the UK.

I for one, would like the government to make it harder for insurance companies to back out of paying for things your policy is supposed to cover. I would also like it to be easier for health care professionals to help patients make the best decisions possible for every individual's health, and it to not be based on what the insurance companies think should happen. Too often people are forced to make decisions on their health care solely based on cost. Health care costs are going up at a much higher rate than inflation. I think that is a huge problem.

I also don't think that health care costs should soak up well over 50% of most family's income.

I think the government should examine why costs are so high, why insurance premiums are so high, and why the coverage for most people is not that great. The government should then come up with a solution that includes reforming our current system to make it easier on most middle class families.

[CCTAU 3,350]

As Titan said, why does the answer have to be universal health care or keeping things the way they are?? There are a lot of other choices, and not all of them involve setting up a health care system like Canada or the UK.

I for one, would like the government to make it harder for insurance companies to back out of paying for things your policy is supposed to cover. I would also like it to be easier for health care professionals to help patients make the best decisions possible for every individual's health, and it to not be based on what the insurance companies think should happen. Too often people are forced to make decisions on their health care solely based on cost. Health care costs are going up at a much higher rate than inflation. I think that is a huge problem.

I also don't think that health care costs should soak up well over 50% of most family's income.

I think the government should examine why costs are so high, why insurance premiums are so high, and why the coverage for most people is not that great. The government should then come up with a solution that includes reforming our current system to make it easier on most middle class families.

I agree with most of what you said. I just don't like the "government" being the one regulating it. I do think that they can be the one "watchdogging" it. But what has the government EVER run well?

I think the 50% number is a little fudged. Just like the 47 million Americans who can't afford health care is fudged. But I agree, it is more costly than it needs to be. The threat of litigation has driven the price of health care through the roof. More unnecessary, costly tests are run each day just to insure that the doctor cannot be sued. Until we have a robot that can test for everything on first sight, we have to remember that docs are just people. That does not make them immune to stupidity, but it should give them the freedom to miss cancer every now and then while thinking it is just a cold, without being sued.

We already have a government system in place to regulate insurance. The insurance commissioners for each state should be subsidized by the feds in order to investigate most of the complaints they receive. There is no silver bullet. But if the government could expose insurance companies, and maybe grade them , on a continual basis, I think that would go a long way. But I would prefer not to have the government regulate the industry until the last resort. I just DO NOT SUPPORT UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. It does not work. Canadians come to the US and pay out of their pocket in order to stay alive. That should speak volumes.

Also, under Hitlary's old plan, if you go to a doctor not within the health nazi's list, you can be fined or jailed.

I do not see a problem with having a PA or nurse at all health departments that can see LEGAL citizens off the street to diagnose and prescribe basic medicines (Wal-Mart $4) without the threat of being sued. We have the infrastructure in place.