Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

And so it begins.......

12 replies

newwave · 18/04/2011 22:54

C&P from the Guardian.

Tory cuts are hurting people

Still the cuts are not hitting front line services according to Dave Angry

Growing numbers of patients are being wrongly denied a new hip, a weight loss operation or even cancer treatment because of NHS cost-cutting, the leaders of Britain's surgeons have warned.

Increasing rationing of operations is forcing patients to endure pain, injury or disability because NHS primary care trusts (PCTs) are ignoring evidence about the effectiveness of certain treatments simply to balance their books.

The warning from the Federation of Surgical Specialty Associations (FSSA), which represents the nine major types of surgeon in the UK, is in an open letter passed to the Guardian.

It accuses trusts of letting down needy patients by branding forms of elective surgery as of limited clinical value in order to help them cope with the NHS's tough financial climate.

The FSSA, which represents about 15,000 surgeons, says it is "concerned that lists of surgical procedures and interventions, deemed of low clinical effectiveness or of 'lower value', are being used by PCTs to limit access to certain procedures ? Review of the lists reveals that there is little or no evidence to support the view that many of the procedures are of limited value to individual patients".

The unprecedented statement goes on: "For example, the lists include types of hip, spinal, ENT [ear, nose and throat], dental, bariatric [obesity] and cancer surgery for which there is overwhelming evidence of benefit. The only justification for these lists can be that they are a means of reducing expenditure at a time when the NHS faces a financial crisis."

The surgeons' move highlights the fact that PCTs across England are increasingly delaying or denying patients access to surgery to repair a hernia, replace an arthritic hip or knee, and remove cataracts, infected tonsils, gallstones, wisdom teeth, adenoids and varicose veins. Some are even restricting the number of patients who can have a hysterectomy or have their baby in a planned caesarean section. Surgeons, heath charities and patients' groups are increasingly frustrated that PCTs are introducing what they regard as arbitrary lists of treatments of supposedly low or no clinical value despite medical evidence that many help relieve patients' symptoms.

The joint statement says the FSSA is concerned the evidence for the lists is "very poor and it is therefore inappropriate for them to be used to determine patient care without the involvement of the Specialty Associations".

Many PCTs, which commission and pay for healthcare, are struggling with the fact that, after a decade of budget increases averaging 7% a year, the NHS in England has to find £20bn in "efficiency savings" by 2015 and cope with close to zero annual rises during the same period.

While they are rationing care, many hospitals and ambulance services are shedding staff.

Peter Kay, chairman of the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA), the largest of the letter's nine signatories and to which 4,000 surgeons belong, said: "This growing rationing is unfair because it is leaving more and more patients in pain, discomfort and misery. But it's also a false economy because it stops some people from getting back to work and costs the state unnecessarily in welfare benefits for others. Plus conditions like arthritic knees, hernias and varicose veins don't get better by waiting ? they get worse and can cost more to treat when the patient is eventually treated."

Kay said he deplored refusing senior citizens a new hip or knee. "Older people are easy targets. Arthritis means they may be hobbling around and become virtual prisoners in their own home, dependent on friends and relatives, if rationing means they do not get the operation they need."

OP posts:
NoTimeLikeThePresent · 19/04/2011 05:18

Cuts Always Bleed.

NoTimeLikeThePresent · 19/04/2011 05:19

Always have.

NoTimeLikeThePresent · 19/04/2011 05:19

Always will.

HarrietJones · 19/04/2011 07:19

Schools have cut staff, social care cuts staff(1/4 of children's services here already)

earthworm · 19/04/2011 14:04

I don't know anything about the NHS so I am genuinely interested in whether this is due to cuts or restructuring.

I thought that the health budget was one of the only areas guaranteed not to fall over the next few years, and in fact to rise by more than inflation? Maybe even that seems painful given that recent budget increases have averaged 7%?

The Coalition is also claiming that Labour would have cut NHS spending in England by £2.6 billion this year and have detailed the alleged spending reduction for every NHS Trust, do Labour refute this?

Would like a better understanding.

jackstarb · 19/04/2011 15:10

earthworm - I didn't think the restructuring had really begun.

You'd have thought that after, say, 10 years of unprecedented levels of 'investment' the NHS could have born a period without an annual spending increase - but apparently not.

It seems that many of Labour's 'improvements' were quite superficial and totally dependent on an ever increasing level of funding. I had hoped (as a Labour voter) that they would have invested in making the NHS more efficient and effective.

earthworm · 19/04/2011 17:13

Thanks jackstarb.

The Institute of Fiscal Responsibility said this :

"In terms of the government's pledge to increase NHS spending in real terms year on year, this is now expected to be only barely met between 2010-11 and 2011-12," the IFS said. "The government is meeting its pledge, but is sailing perilously close to the wind."

Meanwhile, the Office for Budgetry Responsibility is reporting that, due to higher than expected inflation, the NHS may receive a cut in its spending power of £910 million by 2015.

So fair to say that funding is tight but hardly calamitous...unless I am missing something (entirely likely).

meditrina · 19/04/2011 17:21

The reorganisation hasn't yet begun (and is indeed on hold), and the NHS spending has continued to increase. So I do not think the bogeyman of "the cuts" can be blamed.

Who drew up the lists of lower-effective procedures? Was it NICE?

Where is RCS in this issue?

newwave · 19/04/2011 23:00

Here is a conundrum.

The Department of Health has stated "An agreement is still on the table which states there will be no redundancy of Nurses in exchange for a two year pay freeze" (plus some concessions in regard grade pay increases).

The government has also stated there will be no cuts to front line services.

Both positions cannot be correct.

This was reported after the RCN conference told Lansley to get stuffed that they had no confidence in him

OP posts:
earthworm · 20/04/2011 07:13

But how does not making nurses redundant equate to front line cuts?

If the NHS is receiving a budget that is increasing each year in line with inflation, why are nurses being asked to take a pay freeze?

earthworm · 20/04/2011 07:22

Oh ok I have just read that there is a two year pay freeze for health workers earning over £21k, although they will receive an additional £250.

Is this to do with the commitment to increase the NHS budget in line with inflation (but not more)?

Niceguy2 · 20/04/2011 10:53

Exactly JackStar. As much as I love the NHS, you have to wonder sometimes at what point do we say "OK, you have enough money.....you have to make do."

New posts on this thread. Refresh page