NHS funding advice: GDP worth debating… Showers of money will not work..

Health and illness, screening, vaccines, care, drugs and technology led treatments are getting more and more expensive. Society cannot pay for it all, but nobody in power admits this. Litigation is getting even more costly, especially to the state. Linking health funding to GDP would ensure that in times of poverty there was less money…. and this would increase the health divide. It would cap the expenditure and could lead to a more honest debate. Despite the fact that there is no NHS, and that each regional post coded administration rations differently and covertly, the Times reports May 1st 2017: (not in the on-line edition)

Image result for showering money cartoon

Everything for everyone for ever?

Health Funding should be linked to gross domestic product in the way that defence and development  spending is, an NHS body has said. The NHS Confederation setting out proposals for political parties before the General Election said that the Department of Health should be abolished in favour of a Department of Health and Care. It also wants an office of Budget Responsibility for Health and Care to give independent advice on the level of funding needed for the NHS.

Labour promises pay rises for NHS staff – BBC News 26 April 2017

Nick Triggle: Cancer Drugs Fund ‘huge waste of money’

‘Hundreds’ to lodge claims against surgeon

BBC Wales: Councils and health boards dispute £250m care costs

BBC News 2015: NHS spending ‘to fall as share of GDP by 2020’ – BBC News

The Nuffield Trust 2015: NHS in Numbers – The Running Costs of The NHS – nuffieldtrust.org.uk‎

The Kings Fund 2016: How does NHS spending compare with health spending …

Tim Knox in the Times opines: We need a pledge on a royal commission for the NHS

One of the great arguments by those who support the NHS is that it is “fair”; a millionaire at a GP or an NHS hospital will get exactly the same treatment as someone on the lowest income.

At least, supposedly.

A recent report from the ONS shows that if you live in a smart area you will on average have 19 more healthy life years at birth than if you are born in the worst areas. A boy growing up in Blackpool has a life expectancy of just 75 while another born in Kensington could expect to live for at least another decade. While some of this staggering discrepancy is due to external factors (poor housing, unhealthy lifestyle choices and so on), a significant part must be laid at the door of the NHS. It is failing to treat the less well-off adequately and is failing to provide effective preventative care to those who need it most. It is not a National Health Service. It is a Wealth-determined Illness Lottery.

This is just one of the many crises facing the NHS. We might all disagree on the importance and urgency of the individual problems that it faces. But it is hard to think that we can just soldier on as we are now for the next 20 years.

The UK now sits in the middle order or lower tail of European countries for A&E wait-times, cancer survival rates, decrease of stroke deaths, and infant mortality. In 2015, it was ranked 19th of 31 countries for stroke deaths, 20th of 23 for both breast and bowel cancer survival, and 21st of 23 for cervical cancer survival. It was in the bottom third of countries for heart attack deaths, and our closest peers for survival after a cancer diagnosis are Chile and Poland. These are hardly non-critical indicators.

And the challenges are only going to intensify: an ageing population, the future of social care, the perennial funding crises, the growth in financially draining chronic disease, the impact of Brexit on labour supply, the cost (and opportunities) of medical innovation, the problems with mental health. The gravity of one or more we can argue about. Taken together, it is clear that a failure to consider fundamental reform of the NHS would be irresponsible.

But the NHS has become a political football. There is little agreement over the scale of the problems its faces and their causes, let alone possible solutions. That is why we need an honest broker, a peacemaker: we need a royal commission on the NHS.

Royal commissions are public inquiries at the highest level, called to look into matters of utmost importance; and few issues are more important to the future of our country than the health and wellbeing of our citizens.

Their many advantages include the ability to secure vital, cross-party support needed to embed lasting changes, to encourage a public debate on what needs to be done and to detoxify reforms that otherwise may be too politically dangerous to pursue. And royal commissions are independent — governments cannot interfere once they have started — and therefore sit outside of politics. They are also powerful and can compel people to produce documents and other evidence in their inquiry.

And we will need the power to ask difficult questions of experts from all sections of society. We must think beyond the structures and institutions of the last century.

Is the NHS no longer fit for purpose? If so, what is that purpose? Is the crisis really as simple as a lack of funding? Or are citizens bringing it to breaking point through our lifestyle choices?

If a political party were to pledge that it would set up a royal commission on the future of the NHS, it would not only be morally right, it would also be immensely popular. Recent ComRes polling has found that, 61 per cent said that they supported a royal commission, while only 6 per cent said that the NHS should continue as it is. Voters of all parties support a royal commission; 68 per cent of Conservative voters and 61 per cent of Labour voters support the proposal, with Liberal Democrat voters being most supportive at 75 per cent in favour.

The prime minister has rightly said that tackling unfairness and injustice are her top priorities. We all want an NHS that is accessible, fair, and sustainable. Only a royal commission can examine forensically what that means today for healthcare, for citizens, and for society — and take the politics out of health reform.

Tim Knox is director of the Centre for Policy Studies which recently published Lord Saatchi’s An NHS Royal Commission: form fighting fires to lasting settlement at cps.org.uk

Image result for showering money cartoon

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in A Personal View, Rationing, Stories in the Media on by .

About Roger Burns - retired GP

I am a retired GP and medical educator. I have supported patient participation throughout my career, and my practice, St Thomas; Surgery, has had a longstanding and active Patient Participation Group (PPG). I support the idea of Community Health Councils, although I feel they should be funded at arms length from government. I have taught GP trainees for 30 years, and been a Programme Director for GP training in Pembrokeshire 20 years. I served on the Pembrokeshire LHG and LHB for a total of 10 years. I completed an MBA in 1996, and I along with most others, never had an exit interview from any job in the NHS! I completed an MBA in 1996, and was a runner up for the Adam Smith prize for economy and efficiency in government in that year. This was owing to a suggestion (St Thomas' Mutual) that practices had incentives for saving by being allowed to buy rationed out services in the following year.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s