I can confirm the NHS is still working, with a littke help from privatisation.
We left France in December 2025 at which time I had just been referred to 2 specialists which I could not further and new hearing aids were due.
Registration back into the NHS via our new local surgery was quick and straightforward, learning how the general system works after 18 years away has been more challenging.
By the end of January I had new free hearing aids courtesy of NHS.
All medications sorted out in same time frame.
By July I had undergone various tests and nerve block injections to verify lateral stenosis using a private group who contract to NHS so no charge. Treatment is ongoing.
Developed a hernia, from referral to treatment 6 weeks and will be carried out at our local cottage hospital.
And the big one, i had a hip replacement 19 years ago and am having one to match in December.
I arranged a private consultation for this and that same private organisation works with the NHS who have agreed to fund the op.
Ok, the wheels might have turned slightly quicker had we stayed in France but happy that within 12 months of leaving all current medical issues sorted.
In my experience the NHS is still working.
Yes, the NHS is still working, sometimes extremely well, others not quite so much. Today I had ultrasound screening for an aortic aneurysm - this is standard for males aged 65. Arriving a couple of min early, I was seen immediately, whizzed through what was obviously a well-practiced routine (no probs BTW) and off.
OTOH a friend here has had eye surgery cancelled twice now, with sight deteriorating fairly quickly, reasons unknown at this stage.
Hope all was well AM, had mine done as father and brother both had same aorta dilation. Not 65 at the time but my GP happily put me forward. My wife’s surgery has been put back again and that’s before the threat of the doctors strike next month.
Something my parents told me a couple of days ago was that you no longer need to go to the chemist to collect the prescriptions they are now sending them through the post
Careful, not always NHS service, plenty of outside interests damaging the local pharmacist.
Why men?
A quick Google suggests that aortic aneurysm is more common in men than in women. very roughly about twice as common.
When it does occur in women it is more severe. However those cases are in older women.
Cost effectiveness? QALY?
Death almost certain outside of a cardiac hospital and 50% if you are lucky enough to be in a cardiac hospital. How much more serious could it be for either sex?
May well apply for women or if you ask as I did being about 59 at the time. It’s important so any one should be able to get a test, 15 minutes with an ultrasound practitioner
Since you ask: Sex differences are evident in the disease, with men experiencing an earlier onset and higher incidence. However, women may face a worse prognosis and a higher risk of rupture.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1537189124001861
A rupture is bad for any gender.
Incidence of the disease, and incidence of rupture are not the same thing.
I would proffer that it’s generally not discovered in either sex unless some other intervention picks up on it such as heart trouble, when it may be noticed.
Interestingly this popped up on my phone over night, (listening or observing what is being written?
Thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs) differ in prevalence, being equally likely in men and women, but still exhibit faster growth rates in women (twice as fast as men). This accelerated expansion, particularly in degenerative cases, means women face a threefold increased risk of dissection or rupture at smaller aneurysm sizes, prompting calls for earlier intervention thresholds (e.g., 5 cm for women vs. 5.5 cm for men).
65 seems to be the age when you’re offered all kinds of scans and vaccinations etc. I’ve also just had the AA ultrasound, had a pneumonia jab, the first of two shingles jabs, a free flu jab and a pre screening phone call for lung cancer.
From what source?
And what does it mean when it says “differ in prevalence” and “equally likely in men and women”
Isn’t that a contradiction in the same sentence?
Lots of sources seem to say that it is more prevalent in men, it is not equally likely in the sexes, but it is more serious when found in women.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1043067911001092
https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.05.067
https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/44/Supplement_2/ehad655.2042/7391622
According to the leaflet “The condition is most common in men aged 65 and over. Men are 4 times more likely to have an AAA than women. This is why women are not offered screening.”
Statistics then.
Would that carotid ultrascan you mentioned a while back also be useful to see if could get done in same session Corona?
I would think so but not having that scan myself yet I cannot say. Thank you for reminding me though, I will write to my GP and see if I can get that carotid scan.
AKA : Efficient use of available resources.
I am not saying the resources are adequate. I am saying that what is there, should be used where it will do most good.
Mass screening of low risk groups is wasteful.
Men are not routinely mass screened for breast cancer, because they are at much lower risk of having it.
When women go past 71 they are no routinely screened for breast cancer. The risk of over diagnosis and harmful side effects of treatment at that age overturns the benefit/risk seesaw.
That is not without controversy of course.