3
British reluctant to sue health system
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown looks on during a visit to a National Health Service centre in central London, England.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
KAI RYSSDAL: As unwieldy as the American health-care system is, we've got no monopoly on patient dissatisfaction. Concerns about poor care and bad treatment don't go away, whether you live somewhere else or whether there's a public option or not.
Marketplace's Stephen Beard reports now from London where the British government, through the National Health Service, is the main health-care provider.
STEPHEN BEARD: The NHS is one of Britain's most cherished institutions. Health care -- free at the point of delivery -- is widely seen as the country's most highly-prized public service. But that doesn't mean the NHS is perfect. Far from it.
Adrian Goddard is deeply critical of the treatment his aged mother received in an NHS hospital.
ADRIAN GODDARD: She was reduced to this groaning, agonized sort of heap in this bed. I don't think it's anything that anyone who saw it, who had any feeling for her, will ever sort of get over. It was just dreadful.
She was admitted to hospital with a broken leg in the summer of 2008. She died several months later of septicemia, the result, says Adrian, of neglect and incompetent care.
GODDARD: The notion that you could be admitted to a hospital for one condition and die from septicemia from a bedsore... I mean, it's testament to the neglect. Just that simple fact.
He is now suing the NHS for negligence. That makes him a little bit unusual.
Peter Walsh of Action Against Medical Accidents says when it comes to the NHS people are rather reluctant to sue.
PETER WALSH: They're embarrassed to even raise the question of potential compensation. And people tell us often that this is because of the stigma attached to seeking compensation or suing health professionals or the NHS.
[Sound of doctor describing procedure in operating room.]
This operation was a success. But Peter Walsh says more than half a million NHS procedures and treatments a year are bungled. And yet only 5,000 of them -- less than 1 percent -- lead to a claim for compensation.
WALSH: We think that's largely because the NHS is held in such esteem. In fact is so dear to the hearts of the British public that people will only sue if they really have to.
For example, if they need money to cope with a disability caused by a medical accident. And they'll sue to make a point.
Dr. Keith Brent is a spokesman for the main doctors organization, the BMA.
KEITH BRENT: What they want is an explanation. It's not really money that they want. It's an explanation, an apology. And perhaps some kind of assurance that, hopefully, if something has gone wrong that shouldn't have gone wrong, that won't happen again to other people.
ADVERTISEMENT: Injury. That's when you get hurt by someone else. Lawyers. They find those responsible and hold them to account -- for you.
Personal injury lawyers have been energetically pushing the case for taking legal action against the NHS. Some have even been allowed to advertise their services in doctors' surgeries and hospital waiting rooms. But it still doesn't seem to have increased the number of claims. For disgruntled patients and their families, suing remains the last resort.
Adrian Goddard is going to court over his mother's treatment, but only because he made a formal complaint and was stonewalled.
GODDARD: It became clear by about the second or third round of correspondence that no one was going to accept any responsibility for this. That it was an exercise in basically stringing the process out so that we would lose momentum and lose interest eventually.
Some observers say the NHS might even deflect a number of claims by owning up and apologizing sooner when things go wrong. But doctors, lawyers and patient groups here seem to agree: very few Brits regard suing the taxpayer-funded NHS as a money-making opportunity.
In London, this is Stephen Beard for Marketplace.
I don't know which is worse, a system where patients are reluctant to sue where there is (according to this story) rampant malpractice, or a system like ours where malpractice suits, rather than malpractice, are running rampant. But if this sort of thing is common in countries with socialized medicine, it provides yet another reason people in those countries come to this one for treatment when they can and can afford it, rather than the other way around.
Dear Sirs: I listened with amusement that Britons consider the National Health Service to be one of the more cherished institutions (stated twice in this report) as well as their reluctance to sue the NHS. This has not been what I have heard in the past from the British people I have known, however never having lived in Britain might give Mr. Beard the benefit of the doubt. Further, I wonder if perhaps their reluctance to sue might be due to the difficulty of taking on an institution with unlimited resources while the plaintiff would have extremely limited resources and limited chance of ROA. Perhaps a more accurate statement may be "you can't fight city hall." Thank you for your program and I will look forward to listening to Mr. Beard's reports. I will merely assume his reports have his tongue firmly placed in cheek. Sincerely, Chris Miller
I wish to comment on the story about law suits against the NHS in the UK. I am a British trained nurse who has earned a doctorate degree in the US. I teach at a major health sciences university. I also practice as a hospice nurse part-time. I have firsthand experience with the British NHS system and the US one both as a nurse as well as a patient.
The report about the man suing the NHS sounds horrific. However, let’s remember that hospital-acquired infections are not unique to systems with socialized medicine. Patients in the US pay for private care and still are exposed to MSRA and other infections in hospitals and succumb to such complications every day.
I would like to give a positive example of socialized medicine and the NHS. Yesterday I phoned my mother’s GP and discussed her care. This wonderful provider visits my mother regularly, delivers her medication, and genuinely cares for her well-being.
The fundamental difference in our systems is that the British populous believes that all people should have access to health care. They are willing to tolerate a less sophisticated system than the US because they get health services from cradle to grave. Those that make a good salary are accustomed to paying more taxes than those less fortunate who need health care access. That is a very different situation than we enjoy here where the wealthy are able to hold on to their wealth. The recent reaction to taxing those making more than $250,000 a year to finance health care reform is an example of the lack of understanding by some about the need to care for the underserved in our communities.
Yes, the British are less likely to sue than we are but that’s because they know when they have it good!
