Its kinda sad to see this sort of service. Home visits are a key part of healthcare, but it doesnt scale and is potentially harmful. Especially when you realise that most people dont really need to see a doctor.
Flu is a great example (not judging you, I have no idea how bad it was!) where most people could self care.
Much better is phone doctors & good websites; the NHS have invested heavily in this. You can self-care for many minor things based on online guides, and are then directed to a phone GP for triaging if you need further help.
(example online guide; https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/flu/ what I like about it is that it gives you clear exoectations about self care and when you should feel better, plus clear (and varied) escalation paths for worsened symptoms)
I was in bed for 3 weeks with real flu - not a runny nose or even a nasty cold. Plus, we just moved to a new neighborhood and finding a (good) primary care doctor you can visit is all but impossible - they're all full and not taking any new patients.
The Heal service was an immense win for our family's situation.
> Especially when you realise that most people dont really need to see a doctor.
With regards to the US, the issue isn't the medical need to see a doctor, it's the bureaucratic need to see one, as you can't get approved for extended sick leave without it.
Such visits (and per this document [1, pg 7-8], many ER visits) are for purely bureaucratic reasons, such as no insurance or no other providers available. I interpret this as largely a workflow issue with regards to the availability of the simple care. A separate style clinic or service dedicated and allowed by Employers/Insurance which deals in low-priority cases for the purpose of documentation (e.g., flu clinics) would solve a lot of these issues, but, as I found out with my previous employer and insurance, flu clinics are "not real doctors", and as such cannot be submitted for sick leave claims.
I think we'd see the numbers for inappropriate/unnecessary visits drop rapidly if Employers/Insurance accepted such documentation more easily/readily.
Most healthcare startups in the US are treating symptoms of the problem (poorly) instead of the underlying issue (a fundamental failure of the healthcare system).
The NHS does that because there’s already a massive problem with too high demand and too little supply. Making health care “free” distorts incentives — so they have to come up with clever ways to implement barriers to care: waiting lists, attempts at convincing people of self care, etc. Does that NHS website provide a prescription to Tamiflu as well? Does the website know our medical history?
If people paid directly for visits, there’s a built in incentive to reserve doctor visits for when they are actually necessary, rather than the British system of “free” (provided you can jump through enough hoops to actually earn an appointment.)
Using the NHS as a model of “good” health care is laughable. What’s “good” about the NHS is that it’s “free.” It isn’t actually good when it comes to access to care or advanced treatments. Compare cancer death rates of the UK vs the US, for example. The French system where you actually have to pay some money for appointments is far better — you don’t have to wait weeks to visit a GP: I can get pediatrician appointments generally same day. That is literally impossible in the UK. I also am not getting referred to a “website” to solve my kids’ illnesses — I am not an idiot, I know how to google. I am not going to waste my time going to a doctor unless I actually feel that the doctor can provide some value.
Want to better allocate a scarce resource? Make people pay a price that reflects the available supply instead of making it “free” but with convoluted access models.
What I love here is that there is clear, documented information about the choices on offer - and background into why the NHS recommends paracetamol/ibuprofen on its website.
> Compare cancer death rates of the UK vs the US, for example
Okay; looks like they are nearly identical for US, UK, France (105, 107, 109 per 100,000).
> That is literally impossible in the UK. I also am not getting referred to a “website” to solve my kids’ illnesses
This is the thing - emotively if your kid is ill it feels like they need a doctor. But likely they just need rest and over-the-counter medications (I've always found the pharmacist to be a good port of call for the right advice here).
If you do need a GP for your kid I have never had any problems getting one; day or night.
> I am not going to waste my time going to a doctor unless I actually feel that the doctor can provide some value.
In which case, great, but then I think you're not the target for these sorts of initiatives as you are using healthcare appropriately.
Flu is a great example (not judging you, I have no idea how bad it was!) where most people could self care.
Much better is phone doctors & good websites; the NHS have invested heavily in this. You can self-care for many minor things based on online guides, and are then directed to a phone GP for triaging if you need further help.
(example online guide; https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/flu/ what I like about it is that it gives you clear exoectations about self care and when you should feel better, plus clear (and varied) escalation paths for worsened symptoms)