| Moosh
|
| 911014. Tue May 22, 2012 2:16 pm |
 |
|
This caught my attention today, there is a suggestion emanating from the Government that the model of regional funding for Strategic Health Authorities should be changed. And rather than the current model, which weights in favour of areas which are more deprived (by various measures) it should be weighted by age, favouring those areas with an older population.
Now, according to response by Professor Clare Bambra (Professor of Public Health Policy, Durham University) to an article on this published in the BMJ (link), this would have the following effect:
| Quote: | | It demonstrates that if such an ‘age-only’ allocation approach had been taken in 2011-12 there would have been a 14.9% loss of resource in the North East region (£265 per head) and 12.0% in the North West region (£209 per head). The regional winners under such an age-only allocation are the South East Coast with an increase of 12.6% or £188 per head and the South Central area with a gain of 15.8% amounting to £220 per head. |
| Quote: | | the SHA areas that would have the biggest NHS resource gains under an age-only resource allocation are those in which a higher proportion voted Conservative. Those SHAs with the biggest potential losses are those where there was more support for Labour. |
I don't think I need to add what I think of this. |
|
|
|
 |
| Neotenic
|
| 911018. Tue May 22, 2012 2:57 pm |
|
|
| Old people vote Tory. Hold the front page. |
|
|
|
|
| barbados
|
| 911020. Tue May 22, 2012 3:05 pm |
|
|
The problem with funding in the NHS is that the current method of funding is not the best one. It has always been the case, and always will be. It is the same with the management - whatever is currently being done, it can be done better. That doesn't help with fixing it because everyone is in agreement that there is need for an improvement, but ost of the problems are down to it constantly changing.
It really needs a solid government A la Thatcher not sack everyone and make whole communities ghost towns but the lady's not for turning version. Then put in a long term plan of 20 years here you have no change to the core of the management |
|
|
|
|
| Moosh
|
| 911021. Tue May 22, 2012 3:11 pm |
|
|
| Neotenic wrote: | | Old people vote Tory. Hold the front page. |
Tory government screws over the poor to help people who are more likely to vote for them. I suppose you're right, it's not really news. |
|
|
|
|
| brunel
|
| 911029. Tue May 22, 2012 4:00 pm |
|
|
| Moosh wrote: | | Neotenic wrote: | | Old people vote Tory. Hold the front page. |
Tory government screws over the poor to help people who are more likely to vote for them. I suppose you're right, it's not really news. |
Well, Labour unashamedly tried the same tactics in the past, so I guess that the Tories are merely looking to repay them in kind. |
|
|
|
|
| CB27
|
| 911041. Tue May 22, 2012 4:29 pm |
|
|
| Arguing that two wrongs make a right is not a good defence :) |
|
|
|
|
| brunel
|
| 911074. Tue May 22, 2012 5:46 pm |
|
|
| CB27 wrote: | | Arguing that two wrongs make a right is not a good defence :) |
Why do you automatically assume that I'm defending such a move by trying to argue that two wrongs would make a right?
Pointing out that both sides have proposed schemes over the years which have sought to penalise the supporters of their opponents does not mean that I condone the proposal as it stands (I can see a certain logic in the proposal given that elderly individuals are probably more likely to require medical attention, but at the same time am not happy that this would come at the expense of poorer households). |
|
|
|
|
| CB27
|
| 911084. Tue May 22, 2012 7:04 pm |
|
|
I thought the smiley showed it was a light hearted comment...
But in seriousness, no matter who you back or don't, simply pointing out the mistakes of one side to show that another side is not unique in getting things wrong is a form of two wrongs making a right. When it comes to politics it's the natural thing to turn to because of the shape of party politics. |
|
|
|
|
| barbados
|
| 911101. Wed May 23, 2012 2:14 am |
|
|
That has to be some kind of record doesn't it?
3 posts to fall into a he said she said argument.
Both parties are as bad as each other when it comes to funding the NHS. Whichever way it gets done, there will be a better way. What is needed is a sustained period of stability in the way it is managed, it doesn't matter which way it happens, but however it happens it needs to be decided on and allowed to sort itself out. |
|
|
|
|
| Neotenic
|
| 911129. Wed May 23, 2012 4:25 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | Tory government screws over the poor to help people who are more likely to vote for them. I suppose you're right, it's not really news. |
No it isn't. I think it's simply a matter of false - even malicious - correlation.
Greater investment is needed in care for the elderly. Elderly people are more likely to vote Tory. Both statements are true, but it does not follow that they are interconnected.
Similarly, there are heavy concentrations of Labour voters in inner cities - but it would be the same woolly-headedness that puts partisanship above all other concerns to paint any of the initiatives in Manchester, where four out of five MPs are Labour, between 1997 and 2010 as nothing more than the party pandering to their electorate.
Allocation of funds, particularly for the NHS, is a devilish zero-sum game. We have near infinite demands on the system, and a case can be made for any number of special interest groups to receive preferential treatment, and we have very finite means with which to meet those demands.
No matter what happened, someone was going to be unhappy.
But, nevertheless, I think you have to be breath-takingly cycnical to believe that a map of voter preferences was even fleetingly taken into account when deciding how to allocate NHS resources - and, unless anyone can provide more evidence than innuendo that this is actually the case - I think we would do well to ignore articles like this. |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 911150. Wed May 23, 2012 6:38 am |
|
|
| Is it not a little sad that we're not actually asking whether there are areas which are hugely overstretched and if this move might help them? Instead we're just going straight to Changing how it's resourced = bad, Tories = bad, and the same tired assumption that all the NHS could possibly need is another barrowload of money. |
|
|
|
|
| barbados
|
| 911165. Wed May 23, 2012 7:30 am |
|
|
Well said that man.
The NHS does not need money, it needs stability |
|
|
|
|
| CB27
|
| 911216. Wed May 23, 2012 10:35 am |
|
|
It also needs efficiency.
I have no problem with the amount of money going into the NHS, but there seems to be a culture of inefficiency which has been around for many years now and has not been tackled properly.
Insteas of tackling this inefficiency the two main camps of thought seem to be to either throw more money or cut back on services. |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 911217. Wed May 23, 2012 10:37 am |
|
|
| If the government cuts money is the onus not on the managers of the NHS to translate that cut into efficiency rather than cutting services and feathering their own nests? Few service cuts are because ministers have said, "nah, screw them, we won't provide that." |
|
|
|
|
| barbados
|
| 911228. Wed May 23, 2012 11:49 am |
|
|
| One more thing they need to do, and that is explain that targets are just that - a goal to strive for, not a statutory requirement. |
|
|
|
|
