11% of doctors and 4% of nurses from EU + Norway, Iceland & Liechtenstein

[nearlyhellokitty]

theconversation.com/the-truth-about-migrants-and-the-nhs-60908 - Plus:

Migrants that become “ordinarily resident” in the UK are entitled to use the NHS on the same terms as people born here. But they are less likely than the native population to do so. People who migrate tend to be younger and healthier than native populations. Older people and those with disabilities and severe illness are less likely to move, apart from in extreme circumstances. This underpins a longstanding epidemiological phenomenon, called the “healthy migrant effect”.

This is backed up by evidence from NHS data. A University of Oxford study using local authority immigration data and NHS hospital data found that areas with more immigration had lower waiting times for outpatient referrals. On average, a 10% increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority reduced waiting times by nine days. The authors find no evidence that immigration affects waiting times in A&E and in elective care.

Migrants are less likely to be ill, and also more likely to be working. The Institute for Public Policy Research recently reported that EU migrants have higher employment rates than UK nationals. The employment rate of UK nationals is 74%, slightly below the 75% for migrants from EU15 countries (those in the EU before 2004). Employment rates for migrants from newer member states is 83 per cent, although they tend to be in lower-skilled and lower-paid work.

If migrants are working, they’ll be paying income tax and making national insurance contributions. These are the sources of NHS funding. This means that resident migrants are likely to be paying their share towards the costs of the NHS.

So immigrants to the UK are more likely to be healthy and more likely to be working. The opposite may be the case for emigrants from the UK. Around 1.2m Britons live in other EU countries – mainly in Spain, Ireland, France and Germany. While some of these emigrants have moved to work, many have chosen to retire overseas. And retirees are more likely to make use of the health system, simply because they are older. On balance, then, the UK benefits from “healthy immigrants”, while exporting “unhealthy emigrants” for other health systems to deal with.

And you bviously dont live somewhere where entire villages of east european roma have moved to, or you would know the strain they put on the nhs, no fault of their own, but dont think we are stupid to not see what is right in front of us

Bombadier - where have these entire villages moved to?

How many migrants return to their country of origin to age there with family, and not to mention because they want to be buried "at home"?

Does the study say anything about that?

To be honest, it is so shit to grow old in the UK, that I would guess many leave before they become a drain on resources. Not to mention, they might not be able to afford private care homes...

It is interesting really.
First the conservatives dismantle the NHS, build down the welfare state, and general disenchantment takes hold.
Then the UKIP becomes stronger and starts spreading their anti immigrant propaganda, that a frightening amount of people listen to. It is the immigrants fault that the country is going to pots. Not the conservatives, and their policies that protect the rich and punish the poor.
Next Cameron starts talking about getting out of the UK, to make the UK great again, through stopping immigration, and blame the failings of the services on immigration.

I wonder what else is happening in the background that we cant manage to focus on, what bills are passed, that this whole referendum hooha is distracting from. It for sure is not going to be equal rights to inheritance for aristocratic born women.

Quite a few places i would imagine but bolton, salford, north manchester to name a few

As you might know, those places already suffer great deprivation and there is already a strain on nhs resources. There is not enough national support for local authorities suffering great financial strain. It is not the fault of the roma who have moved there that they also have many health and educational issues related to long term deprivation in their home countries, but a natural tendency to move close to relatives and friends means one area put under great financial strain.

What, TooMuchCoffee doesn't get a thank you?

Oops, thanks TooMuchCoffee

Limer all studies I've seen show that migrants are net contributors

But does a study exist that measures everything? Taking a snapshot and saying "tax receipts from EU migrants exceeds benefits paid out to them" isn't the full picture. How do you measure the detrimental effects on a school that suddenly has to accommodate twenty new non-English speakers? What about additional social services/police/court costs? Additional demand on the NHS? What about the cost of keeping a UK jobseeker on benefits when an EU migrant beats them to the job?

I know migration isn't all bad, but the Remain camp's constant quoting of narrowly focused studies doesn't cut any ice with people who notice the bad effects (and admittedly, don't notice the good effects) in their own lives.

I have been thinking about this and your comments limer really rang true. There is no point telling people that immigration benefits the country as a whole (=business cheap wages?) if they see the opposite. People dont care about "the country" they care about their local environment. If the givernment tried to even out the negative effects locally, much better. But of course it doesnt affect them so they dont.
Madness to call a referendum, madness.

The two UCL papers are probably the best in that regard. Economist article on the second one

The question is whether there is evidence that EEA migrants use eg social services signifantly above average per capita?

I'm neither an 'immigration is purely beneficial and the EU is without fault' or 'the road beyond Brexit is paved with gold'. This is a fiendishly complicated issue and unfortunately people are trying to make it look like a simple and easy choice. Combined with the amount of lies out there, it's pretty bleak and divisive.

Jassy that's a better study, but it only uses data up to 2011, and an awful lot of water has passed under the bridge since then.

The question is whether there is evidence that EEA migrants use eg social services signifantly above average per capita?

Precisely. And many other similar questions.

It's a while since I read the full report, I know they considered/controlled for a lot of things. Haven't time to revisit just now unfortunately.

I agree on the timeframe - it's the best available though - but again do we have a reason to think there's been a big shift in migrant demography since then, alongside the uptick in numbers?

Again it depends where you live jassy. A lot of hungarians and romanians (roma) have moved to my local area since then. The area has changed a lot. We have significant issues with other things such as flytipping and driving without insurance, both of which impact us a lot more than the benefits it brings to local businesses exploiting immigrants by breaking employment law and minimum wage law.

Meanwhile.. how BREXIT could have a negative impact on the NHS
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/03/brexit-would-mean-less-money-for-the-nhs

At a time of growing challenges – from an ageing population to new treatments to increasing demand for primary care – continued investment is more important than ever, as successive governments have acknowledged.

That continued investment is now under threat. The economic implications of Britain leaving Europe would be felt at the heart of our cherished national institution.

There is a dangerous lie being propagated by those wanting to leave the European Union that they will protect the NHS. The opposite is true. These are the same people who have campaigned for increased NHS charging; increased privatisation; and cuts to spending. People should not trust their motives or their maths.

Leaving Europe will not mean more money for the NHS. It will mean less. Independent experts have repeatedly shown that leaving will seriously damage our economy with some suggesting Britain would enter recession. That means reduced funding for public services – strangling NHS finances, with potentially frightening consequences for staffing, waiting times, and levels of service care.

The economic damage wreaked by leaving Europe will have devastating knock-on effects, including in the health service. Given the millions of lives who depend on our NHS, it is a risk we simply cannot afford to take.
Alan Milburn, Patricia Hewitt, Andy Burnham and Alan Johnson
Former secretaries of state for health

Its hard isnt it

Current government - determined to privatise nhs by driving it into the ground underfunding it then selling it off

Brexit supporters - determined to privatise nhs etc etc

Rock and hard place

Again it depends where you live jassy. A lot of hungarians and romanians (roma) have moved to my local area since then. The area has changed a lot. We have significant issues with other things such as flytipping and driving without insurance, both of which impact us a lot more than the benefits it brings to local businesses exploiting immigrants by breaking employment law and minimum wage law

I'm know, and I agree that it's a difficult picture in part because the impacts are not uniform. That said more of the windfall from EU immigration should go to providing services where there are particular issues.

That said I don't think things would improve for those areas with Brexit - fewer jobs, fewer net contributors, lower GDP and government revenues, extended austerity.

No i agree on that as well. But its a lost cause expecting them to vote remain. They are ignored either way but at least this gives them a feeling of momentary power.

Yes surely what has been learned is that we need more investment in our public services? And it should be targeted to where the crises are?

Again only anecdotal, but my experience is that in 2011 there were only a few whole families migrating from the EU, and now there are many, many more.

Sounding like a broken record, but look at the Romanian family who got the 4-bed house. They spoke no English. But they somehow managed to register for JSA, enrol their children in school and turn up at the council office with the necessary paperwork.

My personal take on this is that when countries like Romania joined the EU, they realised they could move here for work (and many did). But they didn't realise how much else they would be automatically entitled to. Now they do, and they're taking full advantage. Some of the single workers are definitely only here temporarily, but the whole families won't ever be leaving. The impact of the whole family has to be measured, not just per worker. I know a few families who've brought their elderly parents here as well.

No i agree on that as well. But its a lost cause expecting them to vote remain. They are ignored either way but at least this gives them a feeling of momentary power.

I think that's the right, it's the natural end point of years of the politics of division and the failure of trickle down economics. I'm not sure I blame them; it does make me sad and angry though.

That said more of the windfall from EU immigration should go to providing services where there are particular issues.

I'd question the size of the windfall (see above, it needs to be offset against all the additional costs), but yes, you're right. But that brings up the related issue - how can we forecast future demand when we have zero control over the numbers?

Again only anecdotal, but my experience is that in 2011 there were only a few whole families migrating from the EU, and now there are many, many more.

Although we do have recent (last quarter) data on reasons for EU immigration from the ONS, which showed that family migration from the EEA was around the 7% mark of total EEA immigration - though it is probably concentrated in areas that already have significant settled populations which makes it more attractive to bring whole families to those areas? And that would increase the local impact while remaining low at a national level.

I'd question the size of the windfall (see above, it needs to be offset against all the additional costs), but yes, you're right. But that brings up the related issue - how can we forecast future demand when we have zero control over the numbers?

To be frank we are shit at service provision even when we have exact numbers. In my area of London there was a massive spike in the birth rate from 2007 onwards.

This seemed to take local authorities by surprise in 2011-12 when those kids applied for school places.

It's a bigger systemic issue of being able to match public service provision to demand that doesn't work well with a decentralised/privatised model of service provision.

In Scotland, Glasgow they certainly are building more hospitals and more GP surgeries. A condition where the child's treatment cost £250,000 is not common. I have never seen this kind of "health tourism" where I work

Amazingly jassy my area is reducing secondary school sizes due to lack of students. So that baby boom that started in 2007 and led to the doubling of primaries round here? Going to be a big surprise to the secondaries in two years time apparently

Oh god. That is just madness.

And then of course they have to go through a convoluted process before any new school can be built.