How much it costs to skip the NHS queue and get your hip done privately
How long have you waited for a new hip? Email money@telegraph.co.uk
With the NHS backlog close to eight million, desperate patients are being forced to consider shelling out for life-changing treatment themselves.
Long delays have meant going private for hip operations has become a popular option for those who can afford it, or who are fortunate enough to have private medical insurance.
The number of self-funded hip replacements has soared since 2019. So much so, private hospitals have overtaken NHS hospitals for the number of joint operations performed.
Going private to get a new hip may be tempting, but it can also be expensive. Here, Telegraph Money talks you through how to get the best deal.
How much does a hip replacement cost?
The average cost of a hip replacement surgery without health insurance is £14,412, according to consumer information website myTribe Insurance.
Costs range from £11,299 to £18,405 depending on the provider. But direct price comparisons can be misleading, and digging into the details is essential.
Chris Steele, healthcare expert and founder of myTribe Insurance, says: 'What each hospital offers for the price will differ, with some including pre-consultations and follow-up physios and others not.
'You might think that one quote seems expensive but find that it includes more follow-up appointments, other treatments and rehabilitation.
'Some surgeons may quote the cost of replacing both hip joints, while others will start with one hip only.
'It's best to check what the quote includes first.'
Picking a provider
While cost is a crucial factor in deciding which provider to choose, quality of surgery and care should come top of the list.
The best place to start is the Care Quality Commission website for information on hospital accreditation and ratings, including for patient safety, cleanliness and quality of care.
All independent healthcare providers are also legally required to submit certain performance data to the Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN). Data is submitted at both hospital and consultant level and is published on PHIN's website.
Mr Steele says it's important to check the qualifications and experience of the surgeons themselves: 'While each of the hospitals will have preferred surgeons and will likely employ them, they'll also have surgeons that they use on a more occasional basis, much like a contractor.
'As it's the surgeon performing the surgeries, not the hospital, I'd be looking for surgeon ratings as well as the hospital's.'
With high costs in the UK, a number of people in need of hip replacements travel abroad.
Clinics in Lithuania, Poland and Hungary are popular destinations. Many offer packages with aftercare and physio from between £5,000 and £9,000. Georgia is the cheapest country, offering hip replacements for under £2,500.
A reciprocal post-Brexit healthcare agreement, known as 'The S2 funding route', allows patients to undergo planned treatment, such as hip operations, in an EU country or Switzerland through its state healthcare system.
A patient's home state foots the bill, but you must meet strict criteria to be approved under the scheme – including a doctor confirming that your wait for treatment on the NHS would count as an 'undue delay'.
However, patients have reported a gruelling S2 application process, and have told the Telegraph the process involved jumping through 'hoops of fire', only to be rejected.
Paying for a hip replacement
The ideal scenario is to claim the cost of a hip operation on private health insurance.
Mr Steels says: 'Don't forget to call your insurer after visiting your GP to activate your insurance. Have your referral details to hand when you call, as your insurer will need this information to confirm that the treatment you need is covered by your policy.'
As health insurance is designed to cover medical issues that occur after you take out the policy, pre-existing conditions aren't covered. This means that if you don't already have insurance but are on an NHS waiting list for the procedure, or have seen the GP about your joint, you won't be able to take out private insurance to cover the cost.
If you don't have private medical insurance but have the cash required, most private hospitals have a self-pay option. You'll be able to pay for an initial appointment and get a fixed price quote for the surgery.
Alternatively, many providers allow you to spread the cost with a medical loan.
Chrysalis Finance, for example, which works with major private hospital groups including Circle and Nuffield, offers to spread the cost of surgery over a maximum of five years, at 14.9pc yearly interest between two and five years, and has zero-interest options for shorter periods.
Mr Steele says: 'Many private hospitals offer the option to spread the cost of your treatment, so if that's the route you're likely to take, remember to factor the cost of the finance into your decision-making process.
'You may find that while one private hospital charges more for the surgery, they have better finance terms and are therefore ultimately cheaper than others.'
Factors that can influence the cost of hip replacement surgery
A number of factors can impact the cost of a private hip replacement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
29 minutes ago
- Times
JK Rowling praises BBC presenter for ‘pregnant women' correction
JK Rowling has praised a BBC presenter who corrected the term 'pregnant people' to 'women' during a live news broadcast in an apparent rejection of gender-neutral language. Martine Croxall was citing a heart-related study about protecting vulnerable people against extreme weather when she appeared to roll her eyes at the phrase. 'London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has released research which says that nearly 600 heat-related deaths are expected in the UK,' she read. 'Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, says that the aged, pregnant people … women … and those with pre-existing health conditions need to take precautions.' The original wording came from the study's authors rather than the BBC, it is understood. Responding to Saturday's incident, Rowling, the gender-critical author, wrote on X: 'I have a new favourite BBC presenter.' The BBC does not have specific guidelines on the use of gender-neutral terms such as 'pregnant people', which has become more frequent in the wake of calls to remove gender from discussions of pregnancy and childbirth. JK Rowling DAVE J HOGAN/GETTY IMAGES The BBC News style guide does, however, encourage 'appropriate language' when reporting on a person's gender, including using whichever gender pronouns are 'preferred by the person in question, unless there are editorial reasons not to do so'. In April, the Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of a woman was based on biological sex. In a previous statement, the BBC said that it was assessing how to implement the ruling into its editorial guidelines. A spokesman said: 'In our news reporting, we always aim to deal with issues fairly and impartially, and this is informed by our editorial guidelines. BBC News are assessing the ruling to consider any updates which might need to be made to the style guide as a result.' The BBC has been approached for comment.
Times
29 minutes ago
- Times
Leaving oil and gas in the ground was always a pipe dream
Just call me Mystic Mac. As I forecast in this space earlier this month, the UK has finally opened the door to the development of the Rosebank oilfield off Shetland and the Jackdaw gas field off Aberdeen. Ed Miliband, the net zero secretary, famously said that drilling in these two modest reserves would constitute 'climate vandalism'. Well, it looks like he will shortly have to get his spray paint out and daub 'Just Start Oil' on the door of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. To be honest, it didn't take supernatural foresight to predict that these totemic fields would ultimately get the go-ahead. They were given licences by the last government. Production was halted only by a bizarre judgment by the Court of Session in Edinburgh. In January Lord Ericht ruled in favour of the climate activists, Uplift and Greenpeace, who argued that the UK government hadn't carried out a full environmental impact assessment of the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels downstream. It had merely provided an assessment of the carbon dioxide from the process of extracting it and piping it ashore. New methods of extraction can and are producing significant reductions in producer emissions. But the UK government had not formally included an assessment of the downstream emissions since it was deemed self-evident that burning hydrocarbons produces greenhouse gases. What did the court expect? That it would be used to oil bicycle chains and fill balloons? Shell says that Jackdaw alone would produce enough gas to heat 1.4 million households. The environmental and health impact on those households of withdrawing their main source of heating was not, of course, considered in this pettifogging ruling — because that would have required an ounce of common sense. Nor did the court recognise that the gas, which would have to be imported to fuel those domestic boilers if Jackdaw were stoppered, might produce more emissions than using our domestic supply. Yet it should be patently obvious that shipping liquefied natural gas 3,000 miles from America by tanker is more profligate in emissions than using what's produced by extraction from our backyard. The court was tacitly endorsing the perverse logic of the Scottish government and lobbyists such as Greenpeace that, in some morally inexplicable way, imported oil and gas is good while ours is bad. But Sir Keir Starmer was never going to start shutting down an industry that generates about £25 billion a year, according to Offshore Energy UK, and supports around 100,000 jobs. Pointlessly sacrificing these new fields would only have indicated to the few companies still operating in the region that the government is hell bent on closing down the North Sea prematurely. The new rules announced last week by Michael Shanks, the energy minister, will allow further development of the Cambo and Clair fields, expansion of which had also been placed on hold following the January court ruling. This whole episode served only to showcase the absurdity of what is being called the managerial 'lanyard class's' thinking about energy. The Treasury is not stupid and was never going to endorse an exercise in performative self-harm. Nor was No 10. 'Keeping it in the ground', as Patrick Harvie used to advocate, was not what Labour meant by a rational and measured transition to renewable energy. The UK depends on oil and gas for 75 per cent of its energy usage. So the UK government has rejigged the approval process to include a statement of the bleedin' obvious — viz, that burning oil and gas produces emissions. Industry sources believe, rightly, that by submitting this new and more politically correct prospectus, they will be able to go ahead. That is, if firms like Equinor haven't given up in disgust. They're already being hit by a 78 per cent profits tax on North Sea oil, which makes you wonder why they bother. It's not as if the oil price is exactly soaring right now, despite the nasty business in the Strait of Hormuz. Companies such as Harbour Energy have given up and pulled out. Norwegian-owned Equinor, in Rosebank, is hanging on, presumably in the hope that it will be well placed to bid for future wind farm development. It installed the first commercially viable floating wind farm, Hywind, off Peterhead. All of which underlines the lamentable state of our whole approach to energy. Oil companies, demonised by the environmental lobby, happen to possess the very skills and technology which will be needed if and when the green energy bonanza finally materialises. Greenpeace seems to think the wind energy in the North Sea can be harnessed by Native American dream-catchers and transmitted into people's homes by daisy chains. In fact it requires heavy-duty platforms, implanted in turbulent waters, to support wind turbines the size of the Eiffel Tower — and also the laying of undersea cables to get it to the grid (if it can be upgraded in time). This is not very different, technologically, from what fossil fuel companies have been doing for the past 50 years. Rosebank and Jackdaw are not going to solve the UK's strategic energy deficit. They are rather modest operations in a North Sea field that is in steep and irrevocable decline. The glory days are over. But we still need whatever they can provide, if only to ensure a measure of energy security and help reduce costly imports. One of the more specious arguments currently deployed by opponents of Rosebank and Jackdaw is that their hydrocarbons will be exported and are therefore of no use here. Not so: gas goes directly to the UK. Oil is mostly exported to Rotterdam for refining, but it comes back as petrol and other products. It isn't refined here because we've closed nearly all our own refineries, such as Grangemouth, because of our perverse belief that it is morally preferable to import hydrocarbons. Abandoning the North Sea won't bring forward net zero by a single day. It will merely increase our dependency on authoritarian governments in the Middle East, make energy bills even more unaffordable, and deprive the UK of billions in oil revenues to spend on the NHS. Predictably, the Scottish government has not responded to the energy U-turn. The SNP is still under the sway of environmental cretinism. No wonder Fergus Ewing, a voice of energy sanity, has decided to walk. Perhaps Ed Miliband may be following him in the not-too-distant future.
The Sun
34 minutes ago
- The Sun
Boots is selling a beauty buy that helps prevent dreaded chafing this summer – it's cheaper than ever
NOTHING can ruin your day, and outfit, like the dreaded summer chafe. Luckily, Boots has a budget-friendly buy designed to tackle this problem. 2 Whether you're exploring a new city or just popping to your local beer garden on a sunny afternoon, you want to feel comfortable in your summer fit. However, certain outfits when worn in the sun can become a perfect storm for chafing. To prevent this, swing by your local Boots and pick up the Dermacare Anti-Chafe Powder for just £2.40. According to the product description, this buy "helps reduce the discomfort caused by rubbing and chafing". It offers "soothing relief for irritated chapped skin" and it's currently cheaper than ever. The chain retailer has slashed a third off the price, so grab it while you can. It contains 95.5% natural ingredients, which are carefully curated to help absorb excess moisture. This ensures your skin is kept dry, soft, and in good condition. Suitable for all skin types, this product is also cruelty free and internationally approved. To use, simply wash and dry the area of skin prone to chafing, or the area already affected by chafing. I tried the 'best thigh chafing products' while vacationing in Mexico — all of them were bad, but one stood out Then apply the powder liberally, repeating as necessary throughout the day. Boots shoppers rated the product a perfect five stars in the site's review section. "So good for the chafing between a powerlifter's legs, months of irritation and sore have just vanished," said one customer. "This powder is great for anyone who like me has large boobs and tend to sweat a lot underneath," shared another person. "I use it after my shower every day and it works a treat. Would recommend." "Wonderful soft powder that absorbs really well. Keeps you dry and odour free," said a third reviewer. "Excellent product. Haven't had to use any deodorant and my armpits are soft and dry. Love it." "I like this product, I used before and it does a good job if your skin gets sore," wrote another buyer. Or you can use an item from your makeup bag to tackle "chub rub" this summer.
