Another diatribe...

This is the second time within a month or so, where I feel so enraged by something, I need to speak out.  Again not crime fiction.  Last time it was Burberry.  This time it's the NHS and the government.  I really ought to consider establishing another site for my vitriol.  In the mean time, if you want to find out what's made my blood boil, click the link.  (I'm keeping this short so as not to intrude on the focus of this blog.)

I wish I could find the article now, but I can't.    Earlier on Saturday I read that NHS spending is now three times what it was previously.  The commentator asked where the money had gone. I'd like to know too.

It's easy to read "three times" and see billions in quotes and switch off.  The numbers can be so out of this world that it's hard to find reality.  So let's get back to it.  "Three times."  (I can't find the original source now,  but I think it said over three years.)  What does this mean and/or imply?

Let's put this in perspective.  Think of your own income.  £5k becomes £15k; £10k becomes £30k; £18k becomes £54k; £30k becomes £90k; £40k becomes £120k.  How would your life change if your income quickly increased threefold?  What would you achieve?  It's a staggering amount, isn't it?  You were living on one part and now you get double that amount on top.

Now back to the NHS.  We know what's gone into the coffers, but what of the output, given that some trusts are anticipating major deficits and the government has been accused of creative accounting (of a sort)?

Let's consider a medical procedure or consultation. I'd guess/hope at best, that the admin cost of this is no more than about 33% of the total cost and I'm assuming that in going forward with this argument.   Therefore, we might expect at least double the operational output when spending increases threefold.   Has this been achieved?

I'd suggest not.  Evidence suggests otherwise, not least the deficits of various the trusts.  We don't have demonstrably more GPs and consultants with lots of available sessions; we still have waiting lists; we still have cancelled (at the last minute) operations; we still have people unable to see a GP when their need is imperative (but not an emergency); we still have complaints of our elderly "bed blocking" the wards.

Wouldn't a threefold increase in spending suggest we could see at least a doubling in hip ops; psychiatric consults; knee replacements; kidney transplants (if the matched organs are available); much needed MRI scans; faster resolution for heart problems and a material reduction in waiting lists etc., and ambulances actually arriving on time?

Are the stats there to prove that this bucket of funds has been put to good use?  I don't see it.    Neither do I feel it.  So I hear, many people suffered a sudden cancellation of planned procedures in January, with no explanation given to them, but we all know it's due to lack of funds and the impact of the closing of the financial year.

But where has the money gone?

It's three times what has been spent before.  Three times.  Think of the impact on your own pocket and then ask the question again.  Where do you see the difference?  (Your taxes fund this endless hole.)  This government needs to be accountable for its actions.

They said they'd save the NHS.  It looks like it's as good as saving the lemming, even if they've chucked money at it, like an addicted gambler at a poker game.

Investment leads to result.  Unless wholly and appropriately mismanaged. We need real and material results and not the endless transfer of funds into a black hole of admin and bureaucracy.

Comments

[crimeficreader]

Whatever it was I read, it must have been something in advance of the channel 4 "Dispatches" programme which quite nicely pulled the lid off the NHS on Monday evening. There, we were told that the NHS budget has doubled over the last five years.

[Norm alias Uriah Robinson]

Mismanaged is the key word here, Rhian.
A total shambles of mismanagement going back over many years.
Just as one example back in 1986 they wanted to trial a ludicrous new system of payment for NHS dentists. The original trial areas for all of England and Wales selected were Kingston upon Thames and Buckinghamshire. Hardly a cross section of English society,[a very working class area would have shown up the faults in the system more clearly] and when Kingston protested and refused to take part in the trial, it was replaced by Bromley. Of course the trial results were irrelevant as the government had decided in advance that the system would be applied whatever the results. Two years later that payment system was binned as unworkable for another almost unworkable system.
Twenty years of such maladministration and we reach a point where there are virtually no NHS dentists in some parts of the country.
How do you waste all that money?
You give doctors a 60% rise in three years for doing less hours, and pay agencies enormous amounts of money to fly in doctors from Europe to cover weekends.
You pay accountants and administrators huge salaries to do what the consultants and matrons used to do in addition to their medical duties.
You farm out to private industry at huge cost, vital services like cleaning the wards and catering services, and end up with a third world type infection problem.
You reorganise and then reorganise again, you create areas, and districts, and regions, and trusts ad infinitum.....the result is a service that keeps 92 year olds waiting for consultations till 2008.

[Debi]

I know you don't like doing these kind of posts, cfr, but you have something really important to say and I'm sure there are plenty of people out here wanting to hear.

My 92 yr old dad had a heart attack last year and was given a follow up appointment in Sept. That was then changed to this June. He's just had a letter cancelling this one too and rearranging for Feb 2008!!!

Like the new look, btw.