What happened to the Saturday surgery?
By Simon Cox and Richard Vadon
BBC Radio 4, The Investigation
What would you do if you were ill on a Saturday morning?
If you think you would go to your local GP's Saturday surgery we would advise you to check.
The Saturday surgery used to be a staple of British medical life.
It may have been just a few hours on a Saturday morning, but it helped fill the gap from Friday night until Monday morning.
Today finding a local GP whose surgery opens on Saturday is hard work.
f you go on the NHS website you can search for doctors who open their surgeries on Saturday.
According to the website there are 100 Saturday surgeries in London alone.
The Radio 4 series "The Investigation" called every one of the GPs on the list to find if they really did still open on Saturdays.
The results were clear: only eight of the surgeries actually did so. In total there are 1,300 GP practices in London.
SO WHAT DO YOU DO............................YOU GO TO A&E AT YOUR LOCAL HOSPITAL, THE GOVERNMENT WANT TO RECONFIGURE THESE, SO THEY COULD BE CLOSED AT WEEKENDS TOO, SO THE ANSWER...........................
DON'T GET ILL AT THE WEEKEND.....................................!
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Dentists 'turning away patients'
By Nick Triggle
Health reporter, BBC News
Dentists are turning away patients because local health chiefs are running out of funds, dental leaders say.
A new dental contract started last year, but early figures suggest the government overestimated how much money would be taken in patient fees.
NHS trusts have begun to cut their budgets in response and the British Dental Assocation said this has led to some dentists refusing patients care.
A government memo has urged health chiefs to get to grips with the issue.
The memo and many trusts say dentists are treating more exempt patients than expected - children and those on low income do not have to pay for care.
Under the contract, many adult patients make a contribution towards the cost of their treatment.
The Department of Health said trusts should be making £630m from these fees, making up a quarter of their entire dentistry budget.
But health chiefs have now started warning they will not make enough, leading to cuts in budgets.
Health chiefs in Yorkshire, London, Surrey, East Anglia and the Midlands have all reported problems.
This has had two consequences - firstly trusts have not been able to expand services as much as expected and secondly dentists have been denied funds to treat patients.
The contract, which started in April, was designed to expand NHS services amid reports many patients were being forced to pay for treatment privately.
Cambridgeshire - Shortfall predicted to be £2.2m - 25% of what county expected to make in fees. Managers said "significant" problems being reported across country.
YET ANOTHER GOVERNMENT LED MESS UP
THE PCT SINCE IT'S MERGER HAS BEEN IN DEFICIT WITH LITTLE CHANCE OF BALANCING THE BOOKS
UNDER THE CURRENT FUNDING SYSTEM SO.........
CUTS & SEVERE ONES ARE BEING MADE......
By Nick Triggle
Health reporter, BBC News
Dentists are turning away patients because local health chiefs are running out of funds, dental leaders say.
A new dental contract started last year, but early figures suggest the government overestimated how much money would be taken in patient fees.
NHS trusts have begun to cut their budgets in response and the British Dental Assocation said this has led to some dentists refusing patients care.
A government memo has urged health chiefs to get to grips with the issue.
The memo and many trusts say dentists are treating more exempt patients than expected - children and those on low income do not have to pay for care.
Under the contract, many adult patients make a contribution towards the cost of their treatment.
The Department of Health said trusts should be making £630m from these fees, making up a quarter of their entire dentistry budget.
But health chiefs have now started warning they will not make enough, leading to cuts in budgets.
Health chiefs in Yorkshire, London, Surrey, East Anglia and the Midlands have all reported problems.
This has had two consequences - firstly trusts have not been able to expand services as much as expected and secondly dentists have been denied funds to treat patients.
The contract, which started in April, was designed to expand NHS services amid reports many patients were being forced to pay for treatment privately.
Cambridgeshire - Shortfall predicted to be £2.2m - 25% of what county expected to make in fees. Managers said "significant" problems being reported across country.
YET ANOTHER GOVERNMENT LED MESS UP
THE PCT SINCE IT'S MERGER HAS BEEN IN DEFICIT WITH LITTLE CHANCE OF BALANCING THE BOOKS
UNDER THE CURRENT FUNDING SYSTEM SO.........
CUTS & SEVERE ONES ARE BEING MADE......
Ministers warned over NHS schemes
Ministers must keep a closer eye on big NHS building projects after incompetent local health chiefs caused the collapse of a £900m scheme, MPs have said.
The public accounts committee said the government had left the Paddington Health Campus project to local managers who were "out of their depth".
The project, designed to merge three north-west London hospitals, was abandoned after costs rose by £300m.
The government said it had already introduced tighter checks on schemes.
TOO LATE FOR HINCHINGBROOKE, THE NOOSE IS ALREADY AROUND IT'S NECK AND THEY ARE TIED UP IN A TIGHT CONTRACT FOR 30 YEARS.......HOW
MANY MORE TRUSTS WILL FIND THEMSELVES IN A SIMILAR POSITION?
Ministers must keep a closer eye on big NHS building projects after incompetent local health chiefs caused the collapse of a £900m scheme, MPs have said.
The public accounts committee said the government had left the Paddington Health Campus project to local managers who were "out of their depth".
The project, designed to merge three north-west London hospitals, was abandoned after costs rose by £300m.
The government said it had already introduced tighter checks on schemes.
TOO LATE FOR HINCHINGBROOKE, THE NOOSE IS ALREADY AROUND IT'S NECK AND THEY ARE TIED UP IN A TIGHT CONTRACT FOR 30 YEARS.......HOW
MANY MORE TRUSTS WILL FIND THEMSELVES IN A SIMILAR POSITION?
BMA team 'stunned by GP contract'
GPs were so stunned by the terms offered to them when negotiating their new contract that they thought it was a "bit of a laugh", a doctor has said.
Dr Simon Fradd, who was one of British Medical Association's GP negotiators, said they were shocked by the approach taken by the government.
They could not believe it when GPs were given the chance not to do evening and weekend work for a 6% pay cut, he said.
Since the deal started in 2004, average GP pay has topped the £100,000 barrier.
While doctors now make less in basic pay - about £55,000 on average - they have been able to top-up their earnings by hitting targets under a performance-related bonus scheme
Opponents have often criticised the government, claiming they mishandled the contract, which is now contributing to NHS deficits.
Earlier this month, Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt admitted she wished the government had capped the profits doctors could take out of the practices because of the soaring sums.
Dr Fradd was part of the negotiating team representing the British Medical Association during the two years of talks between 2001 and 2003, although he is no longer on the BMA's GP committee.
Interviewed for BBC Radio 4's The Investigation, which will be aired on 1 February, Dr Fradd said doctors had never believed the government would be willing to allow them to opt out of out-of-hours care.
And when they did, he was surprised the NHS Confederation negotiating team, acting on behalf of the government, was only asking for a 6% cut in pay.
He added: "We got rid of it for effectively 6% of the value of the contract. It was just stunning. Nobody in my position had ever believed we could pull it off but to get it for 6% was a bit of a laugh."
Budget
Since the contract came in, nine out of 10 practices opted out of providing care.
NHS trusts have put alternative arrangements in place, but hospital A&E departments have reported an increase in patients.
In a separate interview, he told the BBC that he still thought the contract offered good value for money for patients as GPs were still taking up a relatively small part of the NHS budget.
"I think the government underestimated how much out-of-hours care was worth, but there are other parts of the contract, such as performance-related pay, which were harder to sell to doctors."
Looking back on the new contract, NHS Confederation chief executive Gill Morgan said she felt there were too many sweeteners in the deal offered to GPs. "I think it is always easy to underestimate how strongly GPs respond to an incentive that gives them money."
Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the British Medical Association and a member of the BMA negotiating team, would not reveal how much the negotiators would have accepted when it came to the opt out although he said it was "not a sticking point".
"There were areas of the package where big concessions were made. We agreed to other providers in general practice and the other one was performance-related pay."
The Investigation, BBC Radio 4, 2000 GMT, 1 February, 2007.
GPs were so stunned by the terms offered to them when negotiating their new contract that they thought it was a "bit of a laugh", a doctor has said.
Dr Simon Fradd, who was one of British Medical Association's GP negotiators, said they were shocked by the approach taken by the government.
They could not believe it when GPs were given the chance not to do evening and weekend work for a 6% pay cut, he said.
Since the deal started in 2004, average GP pay has topped the £100,000 barrier.
While doctors now make less in basic pay - about £55,000 on average - they have been able to top-up their earnings by hitting targets under a performance-related bonus scheme
Opponents have often criticised the government, claiming they mishandled the contract, which is now contributing to NHS deficits.
Earlier this month, Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt admitted she wished the government had capped the profits doctors could take out of the practices because of the soaring sums.
Dr Fradd was part of the negotiating team representing the British Medical Association during the two years of talks between 2001 and 2003, although he is no longer on the BMA's GP committee.
Interviewed for BBC Radio 4's The Investigation, which will be aired on 1 February, Dr Fradd said doctors had never believed the government would be willing to allow them to opt out of out-of-hours care.
And when they did, he was surprised the NHS Confederation negotiating team, acting on behalf of the government, was only asking for a 6% cut in pay.
He added: "We got rid of it for effectively 6% of the value of the contract. It was just stunning. Nobody in my position had ever believed we could pull it off but to get it for 6% was a bit of a laugh."
Budget
Since the contract came in, nine out of 10 practices opted out of providing care.
NHS trusts have put alternative arrangements in place, but hospital A&E departments have reported an increase in patients.
In a separate interview, he told the BBC that he still thought the contract offered good value for money for patients as GPs were still taking up a relatively small part of the NHS budget.
"I think the government underestimated how much out-of-hours care was worth, but there are other parts of the contract, such as performance-related pay, which were harder to sell to doctors."
Looking back on the new contract, NHS Confederation chief executive Gill Morgan said she felt there were too many sweeteners in the deal offered to GPs. "I think it is always easy to underestimate how strongly GPs respond to an incentive that gives them money."
Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the British Medical Association and a member of the BMA negotiating team, would not reveal how much the negotiators would have accepted when it came to the opt out although he said it was "not a sticking point".
"There were areas of the package where big concessions were made. We agreed to other providers in general practice and the other one was performance-related pay."
The Investigation, BBC Radio 4, 2000 GMT, 1 February, 2007.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Call to reform NHS charge system
By Nick Triggle
BBC News, health reporter
Health boss explains
Most NHS prescription charges in England should be scrapped and applied to 'ineffective treatments' instead, NHS public health chiefs say.
The Association of Directors of Public Health said rising demands on the NHS will lead to more rationing.
Their president, Dr Tim Crayford, said "If NHS charges should be applied at all, they should be applied to relatively ineffective treatments."
He gave tonsil removal and varicose vein surgery as examples.
"Medicine and treatment that people need for health reasons should be free. But where there's little proof of clinical benefit, the use of such treatments would reduce more quickly if they had a price tag attached," Dr Crayford added.
Doctors' representatives said more NHS care should be rationed, but they were against charging.
Dr Tim Crayford, president of the association, which represents NHS trust public health directors across the UK, said since 1998 spending on cataracts had increased by 40% to £200m, while the cost of hip operations had risen a third to £300m.
"What is wrong with asking people to contribute for some care which is not life-saving - much as we do with dentistry?.
"For operations such as cataracts and hip operations we need to decide at what point in people's lives these operations should be done.
"The Association is calling for a debate on issues such as this to allow the public to decide how the NHS's limited resources are spent.
"If the public agree a threshold what about people below the threshold? Our argument would be that below that threshold they should be allowed to contribute towards the cost as they would with a filling.
"The thing with hip and cataract ops is that they have become more common as waiting lists have fallen and surgery improved, so we have to ask ourselves is it better if patients are asked to wait until their level of pain or blurred vision is more acute.
"The NHS will not be able to do everything in the future."
Benefit
Dr Crayford also said the health service was currently carrying out a small proportion of care which had little medical benefit.
He said procedures such as certain types of plastic surgery, orthodontic surgery, and varicose vein surgery should not be widely available in the future.
"As the elderly population grows and more medical breakthroughs are made, it is clear we are going to have to think about what the NHS is there for and what it is providing."
The British Medical Association is currently drawing up proposals about what the NHS should be providing and will discuss the issue at its annual conference later in the year.
Jonathan Fielden, chairman of the BMA's consultants committee, said it was an important debate.
"We are already rationing the procedures we do, cosmetic surgery is not carried out on the NHS, and the drugs which are used are restricted.
"And I think there is scope to include other things such as varicose veins and hernias in that.
"But the question is how far do you go? If you include hips and eyes I think you are breaking with the traditional values of the NHS, I wouldn't agree with that."
But Professor John Appleby, chief economist at the King's Fund health think tank, said: "I do not buy into these doomsday scenarios. How much extra demand is there going to be on the NHS?
"I don't think there are any miracle drugs in the pipeline and as for the people living longer, what matters most is how close you are to death, not how old you are.
"We consume the most health resources in the last year of life whether that is at 50 or 80."
Professor Appleby also said it was likely there would be public appetite to increase the amount spent on health to keep pace with increasing demands.
Nigel Edwards, director of policy at the NHS Confederation, said: "The issue is quite rational; after all, care is already rationed and we already make a contribution to dentistry, but it is a very emotive and political subject.
"In the end it is going to have to be decided by a public debate and it will be the public which should decide what the NHS does."
By Nick Triggle
BBC News, health reporter
Health boss explains
Most NHS prescription charges in England should be scrapped and applied to 'ineffective treatments' instead, NHS public health chiefs say.
The Association of Directors of Public Health said rising demands on the NHS will lead to more rationing.
Their president, Dr Tim Crayford, said "If NHS charges should be applied at all, they should be applied to relatively ineffective treatments."
He gave tonsil removal and varicose vein surgery as examples.
"Medicine and treatment that people need for health reasons should be free. But where there's little proof of clinical benefit, the use of such treatments would reduce more quickly if they had a price tag attached," Dr Crayford added.
Doctors' representatives said more NHS care should be rationed, but they were against charging.
Dr Tim Crayford, president of the association, which represents NHS trust public health directors across the UK, said since 1998 spending on cataracts had increased by 40% to £200m, while the cost of hip operations had risen a third to £300m.
"What is wrong with asking people to contribute for some care which is not life-saving - much as we do with dentistry?.
"For operations such as cataracts and hip operations we need to decide at what point in people's lives these operations should be done.
"The Association is calling for a debate on issues such as this to allow the public to decide how the NHS's limited resources are spent.
"If the public agree a threshold what about people below the threshold? Our argument would be that below that threshold they should be allowed to contribute towards the cost as they would with a filling.
"The thing with hip and cataract ops is that they have become more common as waiting lists have fallen and surgery improved, so we have to ask ourselves is it better if patients are asked to wait until their level of pain or blurred vision is more acute.
"The NHS will not be able to do everything in the future."
Benefit
Dr Crayford also said the health service was currently carrying out a small proportion of care which had little medical benefit.
He said procedures such as certain types of plastic surgery, orthodontic surgery, and varicose vein surgery should not be widely available in the future.
"As the elderly population grows and more medical breakthroughs are made, it is clear we are going to have to think about what the NHS is there for and what it is providing."
The British Medical Association is currently drawing up proposals about what the NHS should be providing and will discuss the issue at its annual conference later in the year.
Jonathan Fielden, chairman of the BMA's consultants committee, said it was an important debate.
"We are already rationing the procedures we do, cosmetic surgery is not carried out on the NHS, and the drugs which are used are restricted.
"And I think there is scope to include other things such as varicose veins and hernias in that.
"But the question is how far do you go? If you include hips and eyes I think you are breaking with the traditional values of the NHS, I wouldn't agree with that."
But Professor John Appleby, chief economist at the King's Fund health think tank, said: "I do not buy into these doomsday scenarios. How much extra demand is there going to be on the NHS?
"I don't think there are any miracle drugs in the pipeline and as for the people living longer, what matters most is how close you are to death, not how old you are.
"We consume the most health resources in the last year of life whether that is at 50 or 80."
Professor Appleby also said it was likely there would be public appetite to increase the amount spent on health to keep pace with increasing demands.
Nigel Edwards, director of policy at the NHS Confederation, said: "The issue is quite rational; after all, care is already rationed and we already make a contribution to dentistry, but it is a very emotive and political subject.
"In the end it is going to have to be decided by a public debate and it will be the public which should decide what the NHS does."
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Choose and Book and the Healthcare Commission's action plan.
The best and worst performing StHAs have given updates at their board meetings on progress towards the March target for 90% of outpatient referrals to be made through Choose and Book. NHS East of England, the country's worst performing StHA, revealed that it had booked just 20% of November outpatient appointments using CaB - significantly less than that month's planned trajectory of 70%. Meanwhile NHS North East, the country's best performer booked 39.5% of outpatient appointments with the system. It admitted its performance report that 'progress continues to be slow' and warned there was a 'medium risk' it will not meet the target.
http:/ / www.nursingtimes.net/ nursingtimes/ pages/ Home
THE ABOVE DOES NOT SURPRISE AFTER THE CATASTROPHE THAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED WITH CHOOSE & BOOK, SUCH AN ORGANISED CHAOS AND WASTE
OF TAX PAYERS MONEY YET AGAIN................THE G.P'S TELL ME OF THEIR PLIGHT
HAVING TO CHOOSE THE CHEAPEST TREATMENT BECAUSE OF THE PCT DEBTS
AND YET THE SHA CAN APPOINT A COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR ON £90,000 SALARY...............ABSOLUTELY PERVERSE
The best and worst performing StHAs have given updates at their board meetings on progress towards the March target for 90% of outpatient referrals to be made through Choose and Book. NHS East of England, the country's worst performing StHA, revealed that it had booked just 20% of November outpatient appointments using CaB - significantly less than that month's planned trajectory of 70%. Meanwhile NHS North East, the country's best performer booked 39.5% of outpatient appointments with the system. It admitted its performance report that 'progress continues to be slow' and warned there was a 'medium risk' it will not meet the target.
http:/ / www.nursingtimes.net/ nursingtimes/ pages/ Home
THE ABOVE DOES NOT SURPRISE AFTER THE CATASTROPHE THAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED WITH CHOOSE & BOOK, SUCH AN ORGANISED CHAOS AND WASTE
OF TAX PAYERS MONEY YET AGAIN................THE G.P'S TELL ME OF THEIR PLIGHT
HAVING TO CHOOSE THE CHEAPEST TREATMENT BECAUSE OF THE PCT DEBTS
AND YET THE SHA CAN APPOINT A COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR ON £90,000 SALARY...............ABSOLUTELY PERVERSE
Bill to abolish patients' forums criticised as "disgraceful". A UK government bill to reform the way patients and the public participate in decisions about local health services had its second reading this week in parliament, where it faces opposition from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill will abolish patients' forums and replace them with local involvement networks (LINks). It will also modify the duty to consult the public about changes in health service provision. In the place of patients' forums, local authorities will be put under a duty to make contractual arrangements for the involvement of people in the commissioning, provision, and scrutiny of health services and social services. LINks will cover social care services as well as health, will be established for a geographical area, and will decide locally how members will be appointed and how others will contribute.
http:/ / www.bmj.com/ cgi/ content/ short/ 334/ 7586/ 177 ?etoc
THIS IS A BIT OF AN ISSUE BUT I AM INFORMED THAT THE NEW LINks BODIES WILL
HAVE MORE POWERS THAN THE PPI HAVE AND OVERALL MORE RESPONSIBILITY, WE
NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RIGHT PEOPLE ARE IN PLACE TO HELP SHAPE LOCAL
HEALTH CARE
http:/ / www.bmj.com/ cgi/ content/ short/ 334/ 7586/ 177 ?etoc
THIS IS A BIT OF AN ISSUE BUT I AM INFORMED THAT THE NEW LINks BODIES WILL
HAVE MORE POWERS THAN THE PPI HAVE AND OVERALL MORE RESPONSIBILITY, WE
NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RIGHT PEOPLE ARE IN PLACE TO HELP SHAPE LOCAL
HEALTH CARE
Friday, January 26, 2007
NHS 24 helpline sued over death
A woman is suing the NHS 24 helpline service for £750,000 in damages over the death of her partner.
Father-of-two Steven Wiseman died in December 2004 at the age of 30 after complaining of flu-like symptoms.
His partner Kerry Robertson, from Laurencekirk in Aberdeenshire, is now seeking compensation.
It is thought to be the first time legal action has been taken against NHS 24, which said the service had improved since Mr Wiseman's death.
NHS 24 said it had been in contact with Ms Robertson's legal team but could not comment further on the action as it was now a matter of legal process.
Toxic shock
Ms Robertson called NHS 24 about Mr Wiseman three times over three days before his death.
She said she was told that it sounded like he had flu.
At one point Mr Wiseman had to crawl in pain from his sickbed to answer questions over the phone.
He later died in hospital from toxic shock.
Ms Robertson was one of the people to give evidence at a lengthy joint fatal accident inquiry in Aberdeen, which also examined the death of Aberdeen teenager Shomi Miah.
The 17-year-old had been told by nurse advisers to take paracetamol for flu-like symptoms, but later died from meningitis.
Sheriff James Tierney said the system had failed Mr Wiseman and Ms Miah by not identifying their life-threatening conditions.
Ms Robertson told BBC Scotland: "Money's not important although it's going to help the kids.
"It's just the fact that we haven't had an acknowledgement from NHS 24 to say that they were in the right or the wrong and we've had no apologies.
"And they've stated that they don't want to make an apology because they think that they haven't done anything wrong."
Next move
An NHS 24 spokeswoman said: "NHS 24 has been in correspondence with Miss Robertson's legal team and as this is now a matter for legal process we are unable to comment further at this time."
Ms Miah's family is also said to be considering legal action.
her brother, Khalis, 29, said: "We are talking to our lawyers and discussing our next move.
"We've tried to approach NHS 24, but they're not responding. It's absolutely disappointing."
NHS DIRECT - ANOTHER POORLY FUNDED IDEA FROM THE GOVERNMENT, SO IF THEY CAN'T GET THIS RIGHT HOW CAN THEY GET "CARE CLOSER TO HOME RIGHT" THE "MODEL" THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAVE ON NHS REQUIREMENTS IS BASED ON POPULATION NUMBERS NOT POPULATION NEEDS.......................
SO TO HAVE A CALL CENTRE GIVING YOUR DIAGNOSIS FROM AFAR WE SHOULD ALL FELL BETTER?
ASK MY WIFE, HER STORY IS IN A PREVIOUS POST, HER TUMMY UPSET( AS DIAGNOSED BY NHS DIRECT) TURNED OUT TO BE A BURST OVARIAN CYST AND IF I HADN'T HAD GOT HER A GP VISIT AND AN AMBULANCE SHE WOULD NOT HAVE LIVED.......................SAVED BY HINCHINGBROOKE HOSPITAL BUT PUT IN AN UNECESSARY POSITION BY A CALL CENTRE EMPLOYEE, SHUT IT DOWN AND HAVE MORE HOSPITAL BASED "WALK IN "CENTRES....................YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE
A woman is suing the NHS 24 helpline service for £750,000 in damages over the death of her partner.
Father-of-two Steven Wiseman died in December 2004 at the age of 30 after complaining of flu-like symptoms.
His partner Kerry Robertson, from Laurencekirk in Aberdeenshire, is now seeking compensation.
It is thought to be the first time legal action has been taken against NHS 24, which said the service had improved since Mr Wiseman's death.
NHS 24 said it had been in contact with Ms Robertson's legal team but could not comment further on the action as it was now a matter of legal process.
Toxic shock
Ms Robertson called NHS 24 about Mr Wiseman three times over three days before his death.
She said she was told that it sounded like he had flu.
At one point Mr Wiseman had to crawl in pain from his sickbed to answer questions over the phone.
He later died in hospital from toxic shock.
Ms Robertson was one of the people to give evidence at a lengthy joint fatal accident inquiry in Aberdeen, which also examined the death of Aberdeen teenager Shomi Miah.
The 17-year-old had been told by nurse advisers to take paracetamol for flu-like symptoms, but later died from meningitis.
Sheriff James Tierney said the system had failed Mr Wiseman and Ms Miah by not identifying their life-threatening conditions.
Ms Robertson told BBC Scotland: "Money's not important although it's going to help the kids.
"It's just the fact that we haven't had an acknowledgement from NHS 24 to say that they were in the right or the wrong and we've had no apologies.
"And they've stated that they don't want to make an apology because they think that they haven't done anything wrong."
Next move
An NHS 24 spokeswoman said: "NHS 24 has been in correspondence with Miss Robertson's legal team and as this is now a matter for legal process we are unable to comment further at this time."
Ms Miah's family is also said to be considering legal action.
her brother, Khalis, 29, said: "We are talking to our lawyers and discussing our next move.
"We've tried to approach NHS 24, but they're not responding. It's absolutely disappointing."
NHS DIRECT - ANOTHER POORLY FUNDED IDEA FROM THE GOVERNMENT, SO IF THEY CAN'T GET THIS RIGHT HOW CAN THEY GET "CARE CLOSER TO HOME RIGHT" THE "MODEL" THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAVE ON NHS REQUIREMENTS IS BASED ON POPULATION NUMBERS NOT POPULATION NEEDS.......................
SO TO HAVE A CALL CENTRE GIVING YOUR DIAGNOSIS FROM AFAR WE SHOULD ALL FELL BETTER?
ASK MY WIFE, HER STORY IS IN A PREVIOUS POST, HER TUMMY UPSET( AS DIAGNOSED BY NHS DIRECT) TURNED OUT TO BE A BURST OVARIAN CYST AND IF I HADN'T HAD GOT HER A GP VISIT AND AN AMBULANCE SHE WOULD NOT HAVE LIVED.......................SAVED BY HINCHINGBROOKE HOSPITAL BUT PUT IN AN UNECESSARY POSITION BY A CALL CENTRE EMPLOYEE, SHUT IT DOWN AND HAVE MORE HOSPITAL BASED "WALK IN "CENTRES....................YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Patient forum changes 'will fail'
Changes to how the public has its say on the running of the NHS are set to fail because of a lack of funding, leading doctors have said.
The British Medical Association said the structure of Local Involvement Networks (Links) was flawed and open to unacceptable variations.
The Conservatives have also criticised the groups, which will replace the existing patient
forums in England.
But the government said Links groups were more suited to the modern NHS.
Links groups will differ from patient forums by covering a geographical area, rather than being connected to a specific NHS body.
They will also cover both health and social care, be able to inspect NHS premises and work more closely with the voluntary sector.
Local variation
The BMA views are outlined in its response to a Health Select Committee inquiry on public and patient involvement in the NHS.
It said the proposals for Links, currently going through parliament, would mean fewer groups to represent patients.
And it warned the suggested £100,000 and £150,000 funding for each group will
not be enough to pay for staff salaries, premises and running expenses.
Plans to allow Links groups to be run locally could also mean variations in quality and the possibility that they could be dominated by special interest groups, the BMA said.
Juliet Dunmur, deputy chairwoman of the BMA Patient Liaison Group, said: "Many people would like a say in how their health services are run, but have never been given the opportunity.
"If Links are to have any real influence they will need much more support than their predecessors ever received."
And Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association, said there had been too much change in how patients' views were represented in the NHS, with the closure of Community Health Councils and now patient forums.
"Why can't we just stand still and give these bodies time to make a difference?"
But a Department of Health spokeswoman said: "The current arrangements to support a stronger patient voice were designed to fit the health service five years ago.
"Since then, the NHS and social care system has changed and it is now time to strengthen peoples' voices further."
Shadow Health Minister John Baron criticised the way the plans for Links were added to the Local Government Bill rather than being included in health legislation.
'Day-to-day meddling'
In a separate development, the NHS Confederation, which represents the managers of most NHS organisations published an Ipsos Mori survey showing only 9% of those questioned thought politicians should have a say in which treatments are funded by the NHS.
The poll of just under 1,000 people found 70% think doctors should have a say, while 33% want patient representatives should be involved and 23% that managers should have a say.
Dr Gill Morgan, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said clinicians and managers were working hard to meet the needs of patients within a system with "finite resources".
"It is reassuring to see, therefore, that the public believes it is clinicians, patient representatives and managers who are best equipped to make these tough choices - not national or local politicians."
The Conservatives said the NHS did not need "day-to-day meddling" from politicians.
Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb said: "Any independence from politicians must go hand in hand with genuine accountability to patients and the wider community.
A Department of Health spokesperson said: "NICE was established precisely to make difficult decisions on the basis of the evidence and free from political interference."
SOUNDS LIKE THE WORD UNDERFUNDED COMES TO MIND YET AGAIN
Changes to how the public has its say on the running of the NHS are set to fail because of a lack of funding, leading doctors have said.
The British Medical Association said the structure of Local Involvement Networks (Links) was flawed and open to unacceptable variations.
The Conservatives have also criticised the groups, which will replace the existing patient
forums in England.
But the government said Links groups were more suited to the modern NHS.
Links groups will differ from patient forums by covering a geographical area, rather than being connected to a specific NHS body.
They will also cover both health and social care, be able to inspect NHS premises and work more closely with the voluntary sector.
Local variation
The BMA views are outlined in its response to a Health Select Committee inquiry on public and patient involvement in the NHS.
It said the proposals for Links, currently going through parliament, would mean fewer groups to represent patients.
And it warned the suggested £100,000 and £150,000 funding for each group will
not be enough to pay for staff salaries, premises and running expenses.
Plans to allow Links groups to be run locally could also mean variations in quality and the possibility that they could be dominated by special interest groups, the BMA said.
Juliet Dunmur, deputy chairwoman of the BMA Patient Liaison Group, said: "Many people would like a say in how their health services are run, but have never been given the opportunity.
"If Links are to have any real influence they will need much more support than their predecessors ever received."
And Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association, said there had been too much change in how patients' views were represented in the NHS, with the closure of Community Health Councils and now patient forums.
"Why can't we just stand still and give these bodies time to make a difference?"
But a Department of Health spokeswoman said: "The current arrangements to support a stronger patient voice were designed to fit the health service five years ago.
"Since then, the NHS and social care system has changed and it is now time to strengthen peoples' voices further."
Shadow Health Minister John Baron criticised the way the plans for Links were added to the Local Government Bill rather than being included in health legislation.
'Day-to-day meddling'
In a separate development, the NHS Confederation, which represents the managers of most NHS organisations published an Ipsos Mori survey showing only 9% of those questioned thought politicians should have a say in which treatments are funded by the NHS.
The poll of just under 1,000 people found 70% think doctors should have a say, while 33% want patient representatives should be involved and 23% that managers should have a say.
Dr Gill Morgan, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said clinicians and managers were working hard to meet the needs of patients within a system with "finite resources".
"It is reassuring to see, therefore, that the public believes it is clinicians, patient representatives and managers who are best equipped to make these tough choices - not national or local politicians."
The Conservatives said the NHS did not need "day-to-day meddling" from politicians.
Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb said: "Any independence from politicians must go hand in hand with genuine accountability to patients and the wider community.
A Department of Health spokesperson said: "NICE was established precisely to make difficult decisions on the basis of the evidence and free from political interference."
SOUNDS LIKE THE WORD UNDERFUNDED COMES TO MIND YET AGAIN
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Afghan poppies 'could help NHS'
By Adam Brimelow
BBC News, health correspondent
Leading doctors say Afghanistan's opium-poppy harvest should be used to tackle an NHS shortage of diamorphine.
The British Medical Association says using the poppy fields in this way, rather than destroying them, would help Afghans and NHS patients
Diamorphine, also known as heroin, is used to relieve pain after operations and for the terminally ill.
But the UK and Afghan governments reject using the poppy fields to address the UK's diamorphine shortage.
However, UK doctors say the diamorphine shortage is getting worse, leaving them reliant on less effective, more expensive alternatives.
Dr Jonathan Fielden, a consultant in anaesthesia and intensive care medicine in Reading, said: "Unfortunately over the last year in particular, the availability of diamorphine has dramatically reduced.
"It's not clear why this is, but it has got to the stage where it is almost impossible in some hospitals to get hold of this drug for use outside very specific circumstances.
"This is a great shame because it is such a good drug".
IRONIC DONT YOU THINK.........................
THE GOVERNMENT SPENDING £540M TRYING TO DESTROY THESE FIELDS AND WE
NEED THE PRODUCT OF THEM FOR OUR NHS FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CLAIM
IS £500M IN THE RED....................MAKES NO SENSE......................
By Adam Brimelow
BBC News, health correspondent
Leading doctors say Afghanistan's opium-poppy harvest should be used to tackle an NHS shortage of diamorphine.
The British Medical Association says using the poppy fields in this way, rather than destroying them, would help Afghans and NHS patients
Diamorphine, also known as heroin, is used to relieve pain after operations and for the terminally ill.
But the UK and Afghan governments reject using the poppy fields to address the UK's diamorphine shortage.
However, UK doctors say the diamorphine shortage is getting worse, leaving them reliant on less effective, more expensive alternatives.
Dr Jonathan Fielden, a consultant in anaesthesia and intensive care medicine in Reading, said: "Unfortunately over the last year in particular, the availability of diamorphine has dramatically reduced.
"It's not clear why this is, but it has got to the stage where it is almost impossible in some hospitals to get hold of this drug for use outside very specific circumstances.
"This is a great shame because it is such a good drug".
IRONIC DONT YOU THINK.........................
THE GOVERNMENT SPENDING £540M TRYING TO DESTROY THESE FIELDS AND WE
NEED THE PRODUCT OF THEM FOR OUR NHS FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CLAIM
IS £500M IN THE RED....................MAKES NO SENSE......................
Can NHS targets really be scrapped?
The Tories want to get rid of NHS targets. But is it as easy as it sounds?
In saying they will scrap NHS targets, the Tories may have picked on the "bete noire" of the health service.
Leader David Cameron said instead of focussing on targets such as waiting times he would look to improve what matters most to patients - the results of treatment.
Unsurprisingly, many of those working in the health service have welcomed the move.
Dr Jonathan Fielden, chairman of the British Medical Association's consultants committee, said: "The government's obsession with crude targets has, in many places, distorted clinical priorities and ignored the health outcomes of patients."
And Dr Gill Morgan, chief executive of the NHS Confederation which represents over 90% of NHS organisations, added: "This is an important step in the right direction for health policy.
Culture
"Both the target culture and the NHS payment system incentivise outputs as opposed to outcomes.
"So we measure how many hip operations we perform, but not whether the patient actually has better mobility afterwards.
"We need to radically overhaul the way that we measure success in the NHS, by putting patient satisfaction and outcomes at the heart of a new approach."
But many experts believe this is not as easy as it sounds.
Jennifer Dixon, of the King's Fund health think-tank, said: "It is easy to criticise targets but they have done a job many patients said they wanted doing - reducing waiting lists.
"If you focus on outcomes, it sounds good, but how will it be achieved? You risk losing focus.
"If you don't have an 18-week waiting target, as we do for 2008, we will never get down to that."
Others believe the move away from "process" targets, like waiting times, to outcomes ones, such as cancer survival rates, is in line with what the government has been doing anyway.
The 2000 NHS Plan contained more than 200 targets but within five years these had been slimmed down to 20.
Focus
Joe Farrington-Douglas, a researcher at the Institute for Public Policy Research, said: "Many of the targets were a product of their time and have since been achieved.
"We are seeing more focus on outcomes, but the trick is picking things that the NHS can affect.
"If someone becomes less healthy, is it the NHS's fault or down to a change in that person's lifestyle?
"The other thing is that it requires the Tories to move away from focussing on things such as waiting lists to attack the government. It may be that some waiting is good if people are going to be treated according to clinical need."
If targets are going to focus on outcomes, there is also going to need to be someone nudging the NHS in the right direction.
The Tories have identified GPs for this role, arguing they should be given control of local health budgets to commission services.
But GPs themselves have given this a lukewarm response, and Ms Dixon believes this is not surprising when their recent track record is considered.
Family doctors already have the opportunity to run local budgets through the government's practice-based commissioning scheme, but little over a third of practices are signed up to it.
Ms Dixon said: "It seems doctors are not that interested in doing this, they just want to get on with the business of being GPs.
"So where is the NHS going to get its momentum from if central control is relinquished?"
THE VAST MAJORITY OF TARGETS CAN BE SCRAPPED ALONG WITH ALL THE STAFF
THAT COLATE THE DATA, HOWEVER IS THIS THE NEW FUNDS THE TORIES WILL
INVEST IN THE NHS?............CUT JOBS BUT LEAVE THE MONEY IN THE SYSTEM TO
REDUCE DEFICEITS?
PROBABLY........................WELL DEFINATELY...................
The Tories want to get rid of NHS targets. But is it as easy as it sounds?
In saying they will scrap NHS targets, the Tories may have picked on the "bete noire" of the health service.
Leader David Cameron said instead of focussing on targets such as waiting times he would look to improve what matters most to patients - the results of treatment.
Unsurprisingly, many of those working in the health service have welcomed the move.
Dr Jonathan Fielden, chairman of the British Medical Association's consultants committee, said: "The government's obsession with crude targets has, in many places, distorted clinical priorities and ignored the health outcomes of patients."
And Dr Gill Morgan, chief executive of the NHS Confederation which represents over 90% of NHS organisations, added: "This is an important step in the right direction for health policy.
Culture
"Both the target culture and the NHS payment system incentivise outputs as opposed to outcomes.
"So we measure how many hip operations we perform, but not whether the patient actually has better mobility afterwards.
"We need to radically overhaul the way that we measure success in the NHS, by putting patient satisfaction and outcomes at the heart of a new approach."
But many experts believe this is not as easy as it sounds.
Jennifer Dixon, of the King's Fund health think-tank, said: "It is easy to criticise targets but they have done a job many patients said they wanted doing - reducing waiting lists.
"If you focus on outcomes, it sounds good, but how will it be achieved? You risk losing focus.
"If you don't have an 18-week waiting target, as we do for 2008, we will never get down to that."
Others believe the move away from "process" targets, like waiting times, to outcomes ones, such as cancer survival rates, is in line with what the government has been doing anyway.
The 2000 NHS Plan contained more than 200 targets but within five years these had been slimmed down to 20.
Focus
Joe Farrington-Douglas, a researcher at the Institute for Public Policy Research, said: "Many of the targets were a product of their time and have since been achieved.
"We are seeing more focus on outcomes, but the trick is picking things that the NHS can affect.
"If someone becomes less healthy, is it the NHS's fault or down to a change in that person's lifestyle?
"The other thing is that it requires the Tories to move away from focussing on things such as waiting lists to attack the government. It may be that some waiting is good if people are going to be treated according to clinical need."
If targets are going to focus on outcomes, there is also going to need to be someone nudging the NHS in the right direction.
The Tories have identified GPs for this role, arguing they should be given control of local health budgets to commission services.
But GPs themselves have given this a lukewarm response, and Ms Dixon believes this is not surprising when their recent track record is considered.
Family doctors already have the opportunity to run local budgets through the government's practice-based commissioning scheme, but little over a third of practices are signed up to it.
Ms Dixon said: "It seems doctors are not that interested in doing this, they just want to get on with the business of being GPs.
"So where is the NHS going to get its momentum from if central control is relinquished?"
THE VAST MAJORITY OF TARGETS CAN BE SCRAPPED ALONG WITH ALL THE STAFF
THAT COLATE THE DATA, HOWEVER IS THIS THE NEW FUNDS THE TORIES WILL
INVEST IN THE NHS?............CUT JOBS BUT LEAVE THE MONEY IN THE SYSTEM TO
REDUCE DEFICEITS?
PROBABLY........................WELL DEFINATELY...................
Fears over new NHS role for firms
Hospitals could be put under threat and the NHS fragmented by a plan to set up private centres
to take over simple procedures from hospitals, doctors say.
Health chiefs in the North West have become the first to start consulting on a new breed of
private clinics to carry out diagnostics and minor treatment.
The Clinical Assessment Treatment and Support centres have been designed to cut waiting lists, officials said.
But doctors warned they could starve hospitals of money.
The specialities covered by the proposed centres are ear, nose and throat, general surgery, orthopaedics, rheumatology and minor treatments, which combined contribute 80% of hospital workloads.
Similar schemes are expected to be put forward elsewhere in the country as the contracts are being negotiated by the Department of Health, with NHS trusts only expected to pay for the services patients use.
They go a step further than the much-criticised independent sector treatment centres as they have the ability to carry out diagnostic tests.
Primary care trusts in Cumbria and Lancashire are carrying out an eight-week consultation over the centres which will be run by private firms, but paid for out of the NHS purse.
The two preferred bidders which have been chosen are Netcare and Care UK.
WELL WELL WELL, IT ALL COMES OUT NOW IN THE EFFORT OF CASH SAVING YET AGAIN.................BUT IN THE LONG TERM IT WONT..........................
WHEN PRIVATE COMPANIES GAIN CONTRACTS THEY "DO IT ON THE CHEAP" BUT WHAT THEY DO IS GRADUALLY RAISE THE COSTS OF THE SERVICES THEY PROVIDE TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT THEY SERVICE AND CUT THE WAGES OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE NAME OF PROFIT...............THIS HAS BEEN SEEN IN LOCALGOVERNMENT........
AND MOST HAVE GONE BACK TO THEIR ORIGINAL FORMATS
BY HAVING WORK DONE "IN HOUSE"................BE WARNED............DON'T DO IT........
KEEP IT LOCAL, KEEP IT NHS
Hospitals could be put under threat and the NHS fragmented by a plan to set up private centres
to take over simple procedures from hospitals, doctors say.
Health chiefs in the North West have become the first to start consulting on a new breed of
private clinics to carry out diagnostics and minor treatment.
The Clinical Assessment Treatment and Support centres have been designed to cut waiting lists, officials said.
But doctors warned they could starve hospitals of money.
The specialities covered by the proposed centres are ear, nose and throat, general surgery, orthopaedics, rheumatology and minor treatments, which combined contribute 80% of hospital workloads.
Similar schemes are expected to be put forward elsewhere in the country as the contracts are being negotiated by the Department of Health, with NHS trusts only expected to pay for the services patients use.
They go a step further than the much-criticised independent sector treatment centres as they have the ability to carry out diagnostic tests.
Primary care trusts in Cumbria and Lancashire are carrying out an eight-week consultation over the centres which will be run by private firms, but paid for out of the NHS purse.
The two preferred bidders which have been chosen are Netcare and Care UK.
WELL WELL WELL, IT ALL COMES OUT NOW IN THE EFFORT OF CASH SAVING YET AGAIN.................BUT IN THE LONG TERM IT WONT..........................
WHEN PRIVATE COMPANIES GAIN CONTRACTS THEY "DO IT ON THE CHEAP" BUT WHAT THEY DO IS GRADUALLY RAISE THE COSTS OF THE SERVICES THEY PROVIDE TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT THEY SERVICE AND CUT THE WAGES OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE NAME OF PROFIT...............THIS HAS BEEN SEEN IN LOCALGOVERNMENT........
AND MOST HAVE GONE BACK TO THEIR ORIGINAL FORMATS
BY HAVING WORK DONE "IN HOUSE"................BE WARNED............DON'T DO IT........
KEEP IT LOCAL, KEEP IT NHS
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Tories aim to scrap NHS targets
David Cameron is to announce plans to scrap many of the government's health targets including those on waiting times, the BBC has learned.
The Tory leader is to unveil the first details of his health policy on Monday.
He will outline plans to set new objectives to measure the effectiveness of treatments and the health of patients afterwards.
He also wants to give doctors greater responsibility for their own budgets and priorities.
'Health results'
The Conservatives say the problem with many of the government's targets is that they simply measure whether patients are treated quickly enough.
They want to set new objectives on survival or recovery rates for serious illnesses.
Former Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell, who heads the group which helped draw up the policy, said patients would benefit from the new targets.
"We have endless forms about process and insufficient focus on the health results that the NHS exists to deliver and it is that focus that we are seeking to shift away from process towards health outcomes," he said.
Dr Hamish Meldrum of the British Medical Association's GPs committee said he would welcome measures to assess how well patients are treated but added he wanted to know more about how the Conservative policy would work.
STILL WON'T STOP THE PRIVATISATION OF THE NHS.....................
IT WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT IF RUN BY THE TORIES, JUST CHEAPER AS THE STATISTIC'S STAFF WOULD NO LONGER BE EMPLOYED....................
A SPRAT TO CATCH A MACKERAL...........DON'T BE TAKEN IN BY EITHER OF THE 2 BIG POLITICAL PARTIES AS THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO THE SAME CARVE UP OF THE NHS
David Cameron is to announce plans to scrap many of the government's health targets including those on waiting times, the BBC has learned.
The Tory leader is to unveil the first details of his health policy on Monday.
He will outline plans to set new objectives to measure the effectiveness of treatments and the health of patients afterwards.
He also wants to give doctors greater responsibility for their own budgets and priorities.
'Health results'
The Conservatives say the problem with many of the government's targets is that they simply measure whether patients are treated quickly enough.
They want to set new objectives on survival or recovery rates for serious illnesses.
Former Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell, who heads the group which helped draw up the policy, said patients would benefit from the new targets.
"We have endless forms about process and insufficient focus on the health results that the NHS exists to deliver and it is that focus that we are seeking to shift away from process towards health outcomes," he said.
Dr Hamish Meldrum of the British Medical Association's GPs committee said he would welcome measures to assess how well patients are treated but added he wanted to know more about how the Conservative policy would work.
STILL WON'T STOP THE PRIVATISATION OF THE NHS.....................
IT WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT IF RUN BY THE TORIES, JUST CHEAPER AS THE STATISTIC'S STAFF WOULD NO LONGER BE EMPLOYED....................
A SPRAT TO CATCH A MACKERAL...........DON'T BE TAKEN IN BY EITHER OF THE 2 BIG POLITICAL PARTIES AS THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO THE SAME CARVE UP OF THE NHS
Saturday, January 20, 2007
PFI firms 'make £23bn NHS profit'
The private sector will make £23bn in profits and interest over the next 30 years by building NHS hospitals, campaigners have calculated.
Under the private finance initiative, a company builds a hospital and then gets "rent" from the NHS for a set term.
A report by the Keep Our NHS Public claims the government is carrying out "patchwork privatisation" of the NHS.
The Department of Health said it "did not recognise the figures" and was "committed to a publicly funded NHS".
Private involvement
The report was being launched at a conference for health campaigners in London on Saturday.
It says: "Unlike the Thatcher privatisations of the 1980s, the whole NHS is not being put up for auction.
"Instead, it is being parcelled up into bite-sized pieces and handed over to private control bit by bit.
"This is happening on such a scale and at such pace as to make it a unique phenomenon."
Alex Nunns, of Keep Our NHS Public, said: "Unbeknown to the public, the NHS is paying astronomical sums of money to the private sector.
"When the NHS is making cuts and closures across the country, it's time to ask if this is the best use of public money."
The sums
As recently as October, the government disclosed some of the figures involved in the NHS's use of PFI schemes to finance new hospitals.
The figures, which emerged in a response to a Parliamentary Question tabled by Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, showed that the NHS would pay a total of £53bn to the private firms involved.
That amount was the total cost, as opposed to the numbers in the report by Keep Our NHS Public, which relate to profits.
But the Tories claimed at the time that the new hospitals themselves were only worth £8bn, leaving "completely unjustifiable" extra costs of £45bn.
A spokesman from the Department of Health said in response to the new report that the annual payments made by NHS trusts to private sector partners covered financing charges, repayment of capital, building maintenance and, in most cases, all the non-clinical support services like cleaning and catering.
He said the last two of this list could account for between 40% and 50% of the annual payments.
"The NHS has always used the independent sector for treating patients," he said
"But the difference is now that we pay much less for this extra capacity for NHS patients thanks to our robust contracting."
He said more than 250,000 people had received treatment faster than they would otherwise have done thanks to the independent sector.
MAKE YOUR OWN MIND UP HERE, THE 30 YEAR PAY BACK TO THE COMPANIES WHO HAPPEN TO BE THE FRIENDS OF THE GOVERNMENT................
OUR OWN £22M TREATMENT CENTRE IS GOING TO END UP COSTING £93M...............
MIND YOU THE TORIES WOULD BE DOING A SIMILAR PROJECT IF THEY WERE IN CHARGE, STOP FUNDING THE UNECESSARY WARS AND FUND THE HEALTH SERVICE PROPERLY AND DO IT NOW......................
The private sector will make £23bn in profits and interest over the next 30 years by building NHS hospitals, campaigners have calculated.
Under the private finance initiative, a company builds a hospital and then gets "rent" from the NHS for a set term.
A report by the Keep Our NHS Public claims the government is carrying out "patchwork privatisation" of the NHS.
The Department of Health said it "did not recognise the figures" and was "committed to a publicly funded NHS".
Private involvement
The report was being launched at a conference for health campaigners in London on Saturday.
It says: "Unlike the Thatcher privatisations of the 1980s, the whole NHS is not being put up for auction.
"Instead, it is being parcelled up into bite-sized pieces and handed over to private control bit by bit.
"This is happening on such a scale and at such pace as to make it a unique phenomenon."
Alex Nunns, of Keep Our NHS Public, said: "Unbeknown to the public, the NHS is paying astronomical sums of money to the private sector.
"When the NHS is making cuts and closures across the country, it's time to ask if this is the best use of public money."
The sums
As recently as October, the government disclosed some of the figures involved in the NHS's use of PFI schemes to finance new hospitals.
The figures, which emerged in a response to a Parliamentary Question tabled by Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, showed that the NHS would pay a total of £53bn to the private firms involved.
That amount was the total cost, as opposed to the numbers in the report by Keep Our NHS Public, which relate to profits.
But the Tories claimed at the time that the new hospitals themselves were only worth £8bn, leaving "completely unjustifiable" extra costs of £45bn.
A spokesman from the Department of Health said in response to the new report that the annual payments made by NHS trusts to private sector partners covered financing charges, repayment of capital, building maintenance and, in most cases, all the non-clinical support services like cleaning and catering.
He said the last two of this list could account for between 40% and 50% of the annual payments.
"The NHS has always used the independent sector for treating patients," he said
"But the difference is now that we pay much less for this extra capacity for NHS patients thanks to our robust contracting."
He said more than 250,000 people had received treatment faster than they would otherwise have done thanks to the independent sector.
MAKE YOUR OWN MIND UP HERE, THE 30 YEAR PAY BACK TO THE COMPANIES WHO HAPPEN TO BE THE FRIENDS OF THE GOVERNMENT................
OUR OWN £22M TREATMENT CENTRE IS GOING TO END UP COSTING £93M...............
MIND YOU THE TORIES WOULD BE DOING A SIMILAR PROJECT IF THEY WERE IN CHARGE, STOP FUNDING THE UNECESSARY WARS AND FUND THE HEALTH SERVICE PROPERLY AND DO IT NOW......................
Friday, January 19, 2007
GP pay 'should have been capped'
By Nick Triggle
Health reporter, BBC News
The government should have capped the money GPs can make out of their new contract, the health secretary says.
The proportion of profits GPs take out of their practices has increased since the new contract started in 2004, pushing average pay above £100,000.
In an interview with BBC News, Patricia Hewitt said that in hindsight ministers would have wanted to ensure doctors did not take so much in profit.
Doctors criticised Ms Hewitt, saying she was "denigrating" GPs.
Ms Hewitt said: "I think if we anticipated this business of GPs taking a higher share of income in profits we would have wanted to do something to try to ensure that the ratio of profits to the total income stayed the same and therefore more money was invested in even better services for patients."
Statistics from the NHS Information Centre show that GPs took 40% of their gross earnings in profit once expenses were taken away in 2003-4, but this rose to 45% the following year when the contract started.
This contributed to the hike in pay GPs received, with average pay totalling £106,000 - up 30% on the year before.
Family doctors which work in practices with a pharmacy earn even more with reports of some earning over £200,000.
Accountants predict the amount earned in profit in 2005-6 was between £110,000 and £120,000.
Extra services
The new contract was designed to give general practices additional funds to invest in improving and developing services to patients.
It included incentives to reward GPs and their practice teams for driving up the quality of patient care.
A large proportion of GPs' earnings are now linked to the quality of care they provide, with payments made for the provision of extra services, such as contraception, child health and chronic disease clinics.
It also enabled GPs to opt out of night and weekend care
'Taken to the cleaners'
However, Joyce Robins, from the health watchdog Patient Concern, told BBC News that the new contract did not represent "value for money".
"I do think that the doctors' unions took the government to the cleaners with that contract because, I mean, nobody's mentioned that in fact they do a great deal less work," she said.
"They no longer do evenings, no night work, weekend work - this has all got to be paid for somewhere else. - YES HOSPITAL'S AND THEIR A&E DEPARTMENTS
"And yet their money has gone up quite enormously.
"In fact, I understand that far more GPs are actually retiring early because their pensions have gone up so much that they can afford to do that."
Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said: "The government underestimated the number of points GPs would get for treating patients which in a way is really sad because it means the government underestimated the good job that GPs do.
"For Patricia Hewitt to distance herself from the GP contract is a show of how low her own performance has sunk."
Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb said: "The government has clearly made a hash of negotiating the GP pay contracts.
"It is not helpful for them to admit incompetence after the event when the problems in the NHS are already mounting. We need an urgent review into the government's approach to such pay agreements in the NHS."
THE MAIN ISSUE HERE IS THAT THE G.P CONTRACT WAS DESIGNED TO ALLOW G.P'S
TO HAVE MORE CONTROL OVER THEIR BUDGETS AND TO EMBRACE THE PROPOSED
CARE CLOSER TO HOME (DOING HOSPITAL WORK IN THE COMMUNITY ON THE CHEAP AND WITH RISKS) HOWEVER THESE UNDERESTIMATED PROFESSIONALS MADE THEIR SALARIES UP AFTER YEARS OF LOW WAGE INCREASES.
BASICALLY HERE THE COMMUNITY CARE ROUTE THE GOVERNMENT INSIST IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO IS FLAWED, UNSAFE AND WILL BE UNDERFUNDED BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THAT G.P'S WOULD "DO THE RIGHT THING"
THIS GOES TO SHOW HOW OUT OF TOUCH THE GOVERNMENT ARE WITH THE PEOPLE, THE TORIES ARE JUST THE SAME THOUGH SO IT WOULD BE THE SAME OR WORSE IF THEY WERE AT THE REINS -
THE REAL DEAL HERE IS THAT THE HOSPITAL NETWORK WAS TO BE RUN DOWN TO SAVE CASH - NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS - BUT THIS WILL NOW HAVE TO HAVE A SERIOUS RETHINK AND RE INVESTMENT
By Nick Triggle
Health reporter, BBC News
The government should have capped the money GPs can make out of their new contract, the health secretary says.
The proportion of profits GPs take out of their practices has increased since the new contract started in 2004, pushing average pay above £100,000.
In an interview with BBC News, Patricia Hewitt said that in hindsight ministers would have wanted to ensure doctors did not take so much in profit.
Doctors criticised Ms Hewitt, saying she was "denigrating" GPs.
Ms Hewitt said: "I think if we anticipated this business of GPs taking a higher share of income in profits we would have wanted to do something to try to ensure that the ratio of profits to the total income stayed the same and therefore more money was invested in even better services for patients."
Statistics from the NHS Information Centre show that GPs took 40% of their gross earnings in profit once expenses were taken away in 2003-4, but this rose to 45% the following year when the contract started.
This contributed to the hike in pay GPs received, with average pay totalling £106,000 - up 30% on the year before.
Family doctors which work in practices with a pharmacy earn even more with reports of some earning over £200,000.
Accountants predict the amount earned in profit in 2005-6 was between £110,000 and £120,000.
Extra services
The new contract was designed to give general practices additional funds to invest in improving and developing services to patients.
It included incentives to reward GPs and their practice teams for driving up the quality of patient care.
A large proportion of GPs' earnings are now linked to the quality of care they provide, with payments made for the provision of extra services, such as contraception, child health and chronic disease clinics.
It also enabled GPs to opt out of night and weekend care
'Taken to the cleaners'
However, Joyce Robins, from the health watchdog Patient Concern, told BBC News that the new contract did not represent "value for money".
"I do think that the doctors' unions took the government to the cleaners with that contract because, I mean, nobody's mentioned that in fact they do a great deal less work," she said.
"They no longer do evenings, no night work, weekend work - this has all got to be paid for somewhere else. - YES HOSPITAL'S AND THEIR A&E DEPARTMENTS
"And yet their money has gone up quite enormously.
"In fact, I understand that far more GPs are actually retiring early because their pensions have gone up so much that they can afford to do that."
Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said: "The government underestimated the number of points GPs would get for treating patients which in a way is really sad because it means the government underestimated the good job that GPs do.
"For Patricia Hewitt to distance herself from the GP contract is a show of how low her own performance has sunk."
Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb said: "The government has clearly made a hash of negotiating the GP pay contracts.
"It is not helpful for them to admit incompetence after the event when the problems in the NHS are already mounting. We need an urgent review into the government's approach to such pay agreements in the NHS."
THE MAIN ISSUE HERE IS THAT THE G.P CONTRACT WAS DESIGNED TO ALLOW G.P'S
TO HAVE MORE CONTROL OVER THEIR BUDGETS AND TO EMBRACE THE PROPOSED
CARE CLOSER TO HOME (DOING HOSPITAL WORK IN THE COMMUNITY ON THE CHEAP AND WITH RISKS) HOWEVER THESE UNDERESTIMATED PROFESSIONALS MADE THEIR SALARIES UP AFTER YEARS OF LOW WAGE INCREASES.
BASICALLY HERE THE COMMUNITY CARE ROUTE THE GOVERNMENT INSIST IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO IS FLAWED, UNSAFE AND WILL BE UNDERFUNDED BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THAT G.P'S WOULD "DO THE RIGHT THING"
THIS GOES TO SHOW HOW OUT OF TOUCH THE GOVERNMENT ARE WITH THE PEOPLE, THE TORIES ARE JUST THE SAME THOUGH SO IT WOULD BE THE SAME OR WORSE IF THEY WERE AT THE REINS -
THE REAL DEAL HERE IS THAT THE HOSPITAL NETWORK WAS TO BE RUN DOWN TO SAVE CASH - NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS - BUT THIS WILL NOW HAVE TO HAVE A SERIOUS RETHINK AND RE INVESTMENT
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
A&E success 'not sustainable'
A&E departments are struggling to sustain improvements to waiting times because of NHS deficits, doctors leaders warn.
Almost 90% of doctors told the British Medical Association that the lack of inpatient beds was the main reason for not meeting government targets.
They also blamed staff shortages and patients turning up at A&E inappropriately with minor complaints.
Since 2004, 98% of patients in A&E should be seen within four hours.
Around 500 members of the British Association of Emergency Medicine responded to the BMA survey to investigate the impact of the four-hour target, which has been heralded as a success story by the government.
A&E departments are struggling to sustain improvements to waiting times because of NHS deficits, doctors leaders warn.
Almost 90% of doctors told the British Medical Association that the lack of inpatient beds was the main reason for not meeting government targets.
They also blamed staff shortages and patients turning up at A&E inappropriately with minor complaints.
Since 2004, 98% of patients in A&E should be seen within four hours.
Around 500 members of the British Association of Emergency Medicine responded to the BMA survey to investigate the impact of the four-hour target, which has been heralded as a success story by the government.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
The MP, the health secretary, and an unresolved conflict
· Campaign over A&E highlights discrepancy
· Hewitt said to see protests as legitimate response
John Carvel, social affairs editor
Saturday January 13, 2007
The Guardian
Throughout last year, Kitty Ussher, an up and coming Labour MP, fought a high profile campaign to save the accident and emergency department at the NHS hospital in her Burnley constituency.
It was slated for closure and there were fears among the townspeople that lives could be lost if they had to be taken in an emergency to the hospital in Blackburn.
In June, Ms Ussher led local protesters on a delegation to London to plead their case with Patricia Hewitt, the health secretary. It may not have been too difficult for the 35-year-old MP to gain access to the minister. For three years, while Ms Hewitt was trade and industry secretary, Ms Ussher was her special adviser.
· Campaign over A&E highlights discrepancy
· Hewitt said to see protests as legitimate response
John Carvel, social affairs editor
Saturday January 13, 2007
The Guardian
Throughout last year, Kitty Ussher, an up and coming Labour MP, fought a high profile campaign to save the accident and emergency department at the NHS hospital in her Burnley constituency.
It was slated for closure and there were fears among the townspeople that lives could be lost if they had to be taken in an emergency to the hospital in Blackburn.
In June, Ms Ussher led local protesters on a delegation to London to plead their case with Patricia Hewitt, the health secretary. It may not have been too difficult for the 35-year-old MP to gain access to the minister. For three years, while Ms Hewitt was trade and industry secretary, Ms Ussher was her special adviser.
Revealed: the 11 government ministers fighting NHS cuts
Solicitor-general and two of Hewitt's own team have campaigned against closures
John Carvel, social affairs editor
Saturday January 13, 2007
The Guardian
At least 13 members of Tony Blair's ministerial team have campaigned over the last few months against closure of services at NHS hospitals used by their constituents, a Guardian survey has revealed.
The hitherto unrealised scale of opposition within the government's ranks to the consequences of NHS reform reflects the difficulty Patricia Hewitt, the health secretary, faces in selling her policies to the nation. Many Labour backbenchers are also showing their dissent by making campaigns to save accident and emergency departments or maternity services the focus of their constituency activities.
Solicitor-general and two of Hewitt's own team have campaigned against closures
John Carvel, social affairs editor
Saturday January 13, 2007
The Guardian
At least 13 members of Tony Blair's ministerial team have campaigned over the last few months against closure of services at NHS hospitals used by their constituents, a Guardian survey has revealed.
The hitherto unrealised scale of opposition within the government's ranks to the consequences of NHS reform reflects the difficulty Patricia Hewitt, the health secretary, faces in selling her policies to the nation. Many Labour backbenchers are also showing their dissent by making campaigns to save accident and emergency departments or maternity services the focus of their constituency activities.
OBSCENE
Patients can pay for NHS surgery
Northampton General Hospital offers surgery to patients who pay
A financially-struggling hospital is offering patients the chance to pay up to £6,000 to avoid waiting for surgery.
The local hospital trust has run out of cash to perform the operations at Northampton General Hospital.
Instead, patients who can provide the money can avoid waiting four months for treatments such as hip replacements, which cost around £6,000.
The move has been criticised by the Department of Health, which described it as "completely unacceptable".
Patients can pay for NHS surgery
Northampton General Hospital offers surgery to patients who pay
A financially-struggling hospital is offering patients the chance to pay up to £6,000 to avoid waiting for surgery.
The local hospital trust has run out of cash to perform the operations at Northampton General Hospital.
Instead, patients who can provide the money can avoid waiting four months for treatments such as hip replacements, which cost around £6,000.
The move has been criticised by the Department of Health, which described it as "completely unacceptable".
Thursday, January 11, 2007
One year to save NHS, doctors say
There is just one year left to save the NHS, doctors' leaders warn.
Deficits and the end of record budget rises in 2008 mean the clock is ticking to get the NHS in order, the British Medical Association chairman said.
James Johnson said the public would not understand why cuts were being made once spending was up to the level of the top-spending European countries.
And he said questions may even be asked about how the health system is funded if the problems are not resolved.
But the government has maintained reforms are improving the NHS and the funding problems will be resolved this year.
Over recent years the NHS has been enjoying yearly budget rises of over 7%. Next year that is likely to return to a figure of slightly above inflation.
But Mr Johnson said the NHS was not currently in the position one might expect after years of extra investment.
An awful lot of trusts were in "quite dire financial straits", very big savings were having to be made and people were hearing about wards standing empty and operating theatres not being used, he said.
Mr Johnson also warned that poor workforce planning by the government meant some doctors may be forced to go abroad for work.
Last week a leaked Department of Health document predicted an excess of more than 3,000 consultants in the NHS by 2010/11 that the service could not afford to pay.
Mr Johnson said it was a "disastrous waste of public money" to train doctors only for them to go overseas.
"The whole situation demonstrates an appalling lack of workforce planning.
"It costs around £250,000 to train a doctor plus many more years of specialist training.
"If juniors cannot secure suitable jobs in the future within the NHS they may look overseas for employment. What a disastrous waste of public money."
Questions
And he suggested questions may be asked over whether the NHS continues to provide everything or if people needed to contribute towards their treatment - although this was not BMA policy.
"Don't assume there's anything automatic about the system we have at the moment continuing into perpetuity."
And he added he was very worried that the public health system was "going down the tube".
He said the recent reorganisation of local health trusts, which had seen the number halved to about 150, had seen many public health doctors lose their jobs.
"This will start to hit the drive to tackle obesity, smoking and sexually transmitted disease. All the sort of things we should be doing to prevent ill-health."
There is just one year left to save the NHS, doctors' leaders warn.
Deficits and the end of record budget rises in 2008 mean the clock is ticking to get the NHS in order, the British Medical Association chairman said.
James Johnson said the public would not understand why cuts were being made once spending was up to the level of the top-spending European countries.
And he said questions may even be asked about how the health system is funded if the problems are not resolved.
But the government has maintained reforms are improving the NHS and the funding problems will be resolved this year.
Over recent years the NHS has been enjoying yearly budget rises of over 7%. Next year that is likely to return to a figure of slightly above inflation.
But Mr Johnson said the NHS was not currently in the position one might expect after years of extra investment.
An awful lot of trusts were in "quite dire financial straits", very big savings were having to be made and people were hearing about wards standing empty and operating theatres not being used, he said.
Mr Johnson also warned that poor workforce planning by the government meant some doctors may be forced to go abroad for work.
Last week a leaked Department of Health document predicted an excess of more than 3,000 consultants in the NHS by 2010/11 that the service could not afford to pay.
Mr Johnson said it was a "disastrous waste of public money" to train doctors only for them to go overseas.
"The whole situation demonstrates an appalling lack of workforce planning.
"It costs around £250,000 to train a doctor plus many more years of specialist training.
"If juniors cannot secure suitable jobs in the future within the NHS they may look overseas for employment. What a disastrous waste of public money."
Questions
And he suggested questions may be asked over whether the NHS continues to provide everything or if people needed to contribute towards their treatment - although this was not BMA policy.
"Don't assume there's anything automatic about the system we have at the moment continuing into perpetuity."
And he added he was very worried that the public health system was "going down the tube".
He said the recent reorganisation of local health trusts, which had seen the number halved to about 150, had seen many public health doctors lose their jobs.
"This will start to hit the drive to tackle obesity, smoking and sexually transmitted disease. All the sort of things we should be doing to prevent ill-health."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)