From The Evening Standard:
Quality of care for patients could suffer as the NHS struggles to make £20 billion in efficiency savings, health experts have said.
Two-fifths of NHS finance directors expect patient care to worsen over the coming years, according to a survey. Almost two-thirds think that the NHS as a whole will struggle to achieve the £20 billion "productivity challenge" by 2015, according to The King's Fund research...
So the NHS is supposed to "save" £20 billion over the next three or four years, and when they say "save" what they mean is "spend less than in an alternative scenario where they spend more" (a bit like your wife "saving" £100 off a pair of shoes she didn't need, or indeed your husband "saving" £100 off some whizz bang electronic gadget which he didn't need either).
According to the excellent www.ukpublicspending.co.uk site, NHS spending more than doubled (from £55 billion a year to £120 billion a year) between 2001 and 2010, from which stage spending is expected to flatten off (or only rise gradually).
So a £20 billion saving over 4 years is actually only £5 billion a year, which is like reversing the NHS clock by about six or nine months, surely this is not a thing of impossibility? And if they want a quick win, they can just tear up the PFI contracts on the basis that they were entered into under false pretences, that the awarder of those contracts was acting ultra vires etc etc. Or simply introduce a new Schedule G, and charge tax on profits therefrom at 100% with no deduction for expenses.
Thursday 27 September 2012
"£20bn NHS savings spark care quality fears"
My latest blogpost: "£20bn NHS savings spark care quality fears"Tweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 13:07
Labels: Government spending, NHS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
> NHS spending more than doubled (from £55 billion a year to £120 billion a year) between 2001 and 2010
I didn't notice any improvement in service.
SB, maybe you didn't use it, but I have had plenty of first and second hand accounts from real people who, quite unprompted, said that they were very impressed with their treatments.
Whether those treatments made economic sense or not, and whether we got value for money (a twenty per cent improvement for double the money) or not are separate topics.
Post a Comment