Is it cheaper to cure someone or pay them benefits?

66Mustang

A random silly question that has been on my mind...

In a country where there is a taxpayer-funded healthcare system alongside a benefits system, such as the UK, is it more viable for the state to treat someone who is out of work and receiving financial aid due to a (potentially) treatable long-term illness, or to keep them the way they are?

Putting aside morality. Just interested from a practical point of view.

This is something I’ve been thinking about due to my own situation and that of people I know. I (and others) desperately want to get better and work and live a normal life but I am not getting anything remotely near to the care I need.

Obviously, to cure someone who is bad enough that they are eligible to claim disability benefits is likely to cost a lot of money. We are not talking about a routine operation...

On the other hand, if someone is out of work, the government loses money twice: obviously they pay out directly on benefits and other aid, but on top of that they lose revenue from that person who could be working...

I know this is all very simple, there are of course hundreds of other considerations!!

I know the government doesn’t operate like this but a small part of me does wonder whether it has been decided that it’s just cheaper to keep certain people the way they are.

I’m not sure how this will go, I don’t want an argument, just want to hear peoples thoughts.

So...thoughts?

janer1967

Very thought provoking 

First of all there would be need of lots investment in nhs before this could happen and a massive increase in staff in order to get everyone treated and where would this initial expense come from 

It would take a long time to get money back from people then being able to work and stop benefits 

Another factor is employers and likelihood of them employing someone who has previously had long term absence or people without relevant experience 

A good theory you have thought of but I think most people even if cured may still need meds or NHS support in some way 

That doesn't mean I think people shouldn't be cured of course if possible they should be 

66Mustang

All true @janer1967 thanks for the reply.

I'm not sure where the money would come from in all honesty.

If I ever got a job I'd happily pay a lot more tax than the current rates because I'd just be happy to be in work, but I'm only speaking for myself of course.

I don't know whether more money is the solution though? My family who work in the NHS (non-medical roles) see how much is wasted and we are not talking a few grand a day either but telephone figures. That's another topic for another day though I guess!!

Another thought is the persons age. If someone is 1 year away from retirement and it will cost £100,000 to cure them, they probably won't pay back the money. But someone aged 20 will probably pay it back over their life. Obviously you can't deny care to someone because of their age.

I agree with your final thought that everyone should be treated if they could be.

racyguy

66Mustang said:

A random silly question that has been on my mind...

In a country where there is a taxpayer-funded healthcare system alongside a benefits system, such as the UK, is it more viable for the state to treat someone who is out of work and receiving financial aid due to a (potentially) treatable long-term illness, or to keep them the way they are?

Putting aside morality. Just interested from a practical point of view.

This is something I’ve been thinking about due to my own situation and that of people I know. I (and others) desperately want to get better and work and live a normal life but I am not getting anything remotely near to the care I need.

Obviously, to cure someone who is bad enough that they are eligible to claim disability benefits is likely to cost a lot of money. We are not talking about a routine operation...

On the other hand, if someone is out of work, the government loses money twice: obviously they pay out directly on benefits and other aid, but on top of that they lose revenue from that person who could be working...

I know this is all very simple, there are of course hundreds of other considerations!!

I know the government doesn’t operate like this but a small part of me does wonder whether it has been decided that it’s just cheaper to keep certain people the way they are.

I’m not sure how this will go, I don’t want an argument, just want to hear peoples thoughts.

So...thoughts?

Ummm, yes a good point.

I have been having thoughts about this too.
I once asked a question if medication could remove the need/ability to claim disability benefits. Would long term use of MST(12 hour lasting Morphine) alongside Oramorph (liquid Morphine) and say Pregabalin/Ketamin reduce the pain associated with say walking?
If so the cause of the condition would not change but the ability to live/move around would be vastly improved to the point of normality?
With PIP and mobility with someone not able to move more than 20 metres because of pain would enable them to walk say 200+ metres without pain - thus the enhanced mobility award would be lost and save the taxpayer bundles of money in benefit payments. 

66Mustang

racyguy said:

66Mustang said:

A random silly question that has been on my mind...

In a country where there is a taxpayer-funded healthcare system alongside a benefits system, such as the UK, is it more viable for the state to treat someone who is out of work and receiving financial aid due to a (potentially) treatable long-term illness, or to keep them the way they are?

Putting aside morality. Just interested from a practical point of view.

This is something I’ve been thinking about due to my own situation and that of people I know. I (and others) desperately want to get better and work and live a normal life but I am not getting anything remotely near to the care I need.

Obviously, to cure someone who is bad enough that they are eligible to claim disability benefits is likely to cost a lot of money. We are not talking about a routine operation...

On the other hand, if someone is out of work, the government loses money twice: obviously they pay out directly on benefits and other aid, but on top of that they lose revenue from that person who could be working...

I know this is all very simple, there are of course hundreds of other considerations!!

I know the government doesn’t operate like this but a small part of me does wonder whether it has been decided that it’s just cheaper to keep certain people the way they are.

I’m not sure how this will go, I don’t want an argument, just want to hear peoples thoughts.

So...thoughts?

Ummm, yes a good point.

I have been having thoughts about this too.
I once asked a question if medication could remove the need/ability to claim disability benefits. Would long term use of MST(12 hour lasting Morphine) alongside Oramorph (liquid Morphine) and say Pregabalin/Ketamin reduce the pain associated with say walking?
If so the cause of the condition would not change but the ability to live/move around would be vastly improved to the point of normality?
With PIP and mobility with someone not able to move more than 20 metres because of pain would enable them to walk say 200+ metres without pain - thus the enhanced mobility award would be lost and save the taxpayer bundles of money in benefit payments. 

That's a good question...I don't want to comment on the physical conditions/medicines as I have no experience or knowledge but I do think anyone would happily give up their benefits if they were able to do the things they currently can't do.

Sandy_123

racyguy said:

66Mustang said:

A random silly question that has been on my mind...

In a country where there is a taxpayer-funded healthcare system alongside a benefits system, such as the UK, is it more viable for the state to treat someone who is out of work and receiving financial aid due to a (potentially) treatable long-term illness, or to keep them the way they are?

Putting aside morality. Just interested from a practical point of view.

This is something I’ve been thinking about due to my own situation and that of people I know. I (and others) desperately want to get better and work and live a normal life but I am not getting anything remotely near to the care I need.

Obviously, to cure someone who is bad enough that they are eligible to claim disability benefits is likely to cost a lot of money. We are not talking about a routine operation...

On the other hand, if someone is out of work, the government loses money twice: obviously they pay out directly on benefits and other aid, but on top of that they lose revenue from that person who could be working...

I know this is all very simple, there are of course hundreds of other considerations!!

I know the government doesn’t operate like this but a small part of me does wonder whether it has been decided that it’s just cheaper to keep certain people the way they are.

I’m not sure how this will go, I don’t want an argument, just want to hear peoples thoughts.

So...thoughts?

Ummm, yes a good point.

I have been having thoughts about this too.
I once asked a question if medication could remove the need/ability to claim disability benefits. Would long term use of MST(12 hour lasting Morphine) alongside Oramorph (liquid Morphine) and say Pregabalin/Ketamin reduce the pain associated with say walking?
If so the cause of the condition would not change but the ability to live/move around would be vastly improved to the point of normality?
With PIP and mobility with someone not able to move more than 20 metres because of pain would enable them to walk say 200+ metres without pain - thus the enhanced mobility award would be lost and save the taxpayer bundles of money in benefit payments. 


@raceguy you will find a lot of people are on the  max dose pain relief and still in a lot of pain and unable to function normally.  So that's definaltly not a solution.  Not to mention  the side effects of the pain relief.  If it was that simple lots of us would be running around already. 

SueHeath

Interesting read - wouldn't it be great if we were all treated right at the start, for some of us, 
Would that be every ailment on earth ha ha it is deff one of those questions.
No limping us through our working life, with drugs, "quality of life at the time" to help us stay in work, not having to worry about the long term affect on our bodies that these drugs can cause.
Then just as your coming to the end of your working life, the ailment, that you have fought off for many years comes back with a vengance so you can't enjoy your retirement years.

What is needed is a cure for many of the conditions x

66Mustang

Just to clarify my opening post is of course about treatable conditions, as I am told mine potentially is (though am yet to see any evidence) - I know there are sadly many people with problems that aren't going to get any better.

66Mustang

SueHeath said:

Interesting read - wouldn't it be great if we were all treated right at the start, for some of us, 
Would that be every ailment on earth ha ha it is deff one of those questions.
No limping us through our working life, with drugs, "quality of life at the time" to help us stay in work, not having to worry about the long term affect on our bodies that these drugs can cause.
Then just as your coming to the end of your working life, the ailment, that you have fought off for many years comes back with a vengance so you can't enjoy your retirement years.

What is needed is a cure for many of the conditions x

Agreed

Sandy_123

A cure for all things, would be great, wouldn't it. Science are working on a lot of great projects, that will be a great benefit in the future. For one, growing organs in labs,  with stem cells that will change so many lives.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/06/220614122711.htm

leeCal

Interesting study on SMI (serious mental illness)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7085478/

‘A number of studies have examined the direct costs of SMI to the healthcare system as well as the wider indirect costs to society [15–22]. Direct costs include the use of hospital services, drugs, staff time, ambulances, and community care; for schizophrenia alone these costs can range from 0.5 to 3.5% of national healthcare expenditures [19]. Indirect costs include reduced labour supply, premature mortality, reduced health-related quality of life, lost output, lost tax revenue, transfer payments, and unpaid care by family or friends [21]. The total monetary costs in England for schizophrenia and psychoses have been estimated at £11.8 billion in 2012, and for bipolar disorder, they have been estimated at £5.2 billion in 2007 (equivalent to £6.04 billion in 2012).’


And these figures are just for two conditions costed in 2012!

OverlyAnxious

I think we have to remember that we're still living through a time of increasing knowledge and continuing research.  We're nowhere near being able to treat everything.

Every time I spoke to an elderly relative a few years ago she'd come out with the same line.  'The Doctors are so clever, they've been to University, they know everything there is to know about health'.  And it really wound me up each time!    

100 years ago I'd have been in a straight jacket & padded cell in a lunatic asylum awaiting electric shock treatment.  (After having a panic attack in the workhouse...)  I don't know why people think Doctors, or anyone else for that matter, should be trusted any more now than back then.  We can all only rely on the knowledge & understanding of the time.

The guidelines for mental treatment right now are little more than being told to 'try harder'.  As if people are either lazy or even choosing mental illness!  I genuinely believe there will be some proper mental treatment discovered in years to come...but it won't be any time soon. 

It's also worth noting that pain doesn't really exist.  It's purely in the mind.  It's very similar to anxiety in terms of disablement.  Both are a crucial part of evolutionary survival, designed to stop you doing something dangerous...but both are incredibly debilitating when there is no 'danger' present.  I suspect there are far more people out of work because of pain or anxiety conditions than  because of physical restrictions. 

Regarding the gov't, I think you're looking at this slightly wrong.  People on disability benefits aren't counted as 'unemployed'.  There aren't enough jobs to go around as it is.  If you want to keep the unemployment figures down, keeping people on disability benefit is a good way to do that... 

TL:DR - I don't believe we have the ability to treat many long term conditions, despite what the Doctors may say.  I really don't think it's just about the money.  If we could 'switch off' pain & anxiety for example, that would give so many people quality of life as well as the ability to work, which we know creates the sense of achievement and belonging that we're all looking for...  

leeCal

I agree @OverlyAnxious For example doctors don’t completely understand schizophrenia and they’ve been studying it for a very long time indeed.

Theres also a big difference between treatment and cure, treating may help alleviate symptoms but not cure the underlying malady.

racyguy

Sandy_123 said:

racyguy said:

66Mustang said:

A random silly question that has been on my mind...

In a country where there is a taxpayer-funded healthcare system alongside a benefits system, such as the UK, is it more viable for the state to treat someone who is out of work and receiving financial aid due to a (potentially) treatable long-term illness, or to keep them the way they are?

Putting aside morality. Just interested from a practical point of view.

This is something I’ve been thinking about due to my own situation and that of people I know. I (and others) desperately want to get better and work and live a normal life but I am not getting anything remotely near to the care I need.

Obviously, to cure someone who is bad enough that they are eligible to claim disability benefits is likely to cost a lot of money. We are not talking about a routine operation...

On the other hand, if someone is out of work, the government loses money twice: obviously they pay out directly on benefits and other aid, but on top of that they lose revenue from that person who could be working...

I know this is all very simple, there are of course hundreds of other considerations!!

I know the government doesn’t operate like this but a small part of me does wonder whether it has been decided that it’s just cheaper to keep certain people the way they are.

I’m not sure how this will go, I don’t want an argument, just want to hear peoples thoughts.

So...thoughts?

Ummm, yes a good point.

I have been having thoughts about this too.
I once asked a question if medication could remove the need/ability to claim disability benefits. Would long term use of MST(12 hour lasting Morphine) alongside Oramorph (liquid Morphine) and say Pregabalin/Ketamin reduce the pain associated with say walking?
If so the cause of the condition would not change but the ability to live/move around would be vastly improved to the point of normality?
With PIP and mobility with someone not able to move more than 20 metres because of pain would enable them to walk say 200+ metres without pain - thus the enhanced mobility award would be lost and save the taxpayer bundles of money in benefit payments. 


@raceguy you will find a lot of people are on the  max dose pain relief and still in a lot of pain and unable to function normally.  So that's definaltly not a solution.  Not to mention  the side effects of the pain relief.  If it was that simple lots of us would be running around already. 

That doesn't work with the mobility element of PIP though. The descriptors are purely distance based. If because of pain you cannot walk more than 20 metres then you are awarded the enhanced rate. If with medication lessening the pain you are able to walk 200 metres then you lose that benefit. 
If the medication is measured by the GP and that the relevant dosage is given it will remove most if not all of the pain.
Side effects to that medication is not a reason by itself to be granted the mobility element. Gee with my medication - a mixture of what I mentioned earlier means my distance in walking has gone up from less than 20 metres to over 100 metres. What still entitles me to enhanced mobility is my heart and lung conditions. If they could find medication that enabled me to breath under exertion normally and increase the rate of blood flow then I would give up my PIP mobility award as there would be no reason for it to be awarded.

poppy123456

racyguy said:

If the medication is measured by the GP and that the relevant dosage is given it will remove most if not all of the pain.

That can only come from a person that potentially doesn't experience severe chronic pain. One of my medications is morphine, which i've been taking for around 6 years (along with other things) I can tell you now that i can't remember a time where i've ever been pain free in the past 12+ years.

Karen7788

Great post @66Mustang, it’s really got everyone thinking. 

I have a treatable condition.
I’m on weekly injections, amongst other medications, the injections cost £ 357.50 each, then there’s the cost of my other meds and treatment, ( all funded by the NHS)

Before I was started on the injections I couldn’t even dress or wash myself, pick up a cup and every step was painful. I fitted the criteria for the high cost drug pathway and eventually I was able to work full time for a couple of years, even though it was a struggle, but because of the damage already done I had to go part time. I’m also very lucky in that my employers have supported me all the way, flexible working, reasonable adjustments, time off isn’t recorded as sickness. 

I don’t receive any benefits as I’ve never applied but my tax and national insurance doesn’t even come close to the cost of the drugs. 

It would be great if every treatable condition could be treated successfully but like everything else it comes down to the money. 

SueHeath

Loving this thread/debate - I will disagree with the idea that scientists/medics etc have not moved forward in the treatment on pain management and mental health issues. including babies born with disabilities, I know we can have a moan about our NHS but trueth be told i am happy we have our NHS and access to the many drugs we have - i don't think i have came across a pain relief medication that stops all of my pain and still allows me to function wouldn't such meds be classed as a prop/aid like having to use a walking stick ?

Sandy_123

@racyguy if painkillers were effective in that a person could no longer walk far, but run after higher doses of pain relief, removing all the pain, then it would of sorted alot of people out by now. The thing is the pain relief doesn't do that on max dose now to alot of people. 
Also a lot of people that are disabled are not through pain, like parkinsons disease for an example. So how would that work for them.

SueHeath

Man kind needs to evolve in finding cures, but it's nature that will always find something else to hit us with.
So looking back at Mustang's title of the thread - it is cheaper to have people on benefits if there is no cure or magic pill. But remember there are other countries that have not got the benefits that we have - i for one are glad at the moment to live in England.

Karen7788

I think in the future we’ll be moving more towards finding causes and prevention of illnesses and diseases. 

Lisatho11987777

In an ideal world  it would be fab  but there isn't the money the NHS don't have enough staff and sometimes they don't have the knowledge  of how to cure some illness  

When people fet to a certain age the NHS don't seem to treat them or do operations that may be needed, some illness is complicated  you can have medication to help but there is no cure its a good thread @66Mustang