£620m deficit predicted for NHS

Are the wheels starting to to come off, the NHS is getting 'record funding' but they cant balance the books. To many paper pushers and to much beaurocracy me thinks......

Quote:

---

The NHS in England could be heading for a deficit of about £620m for 2005-06, according to government figures.
Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt said the figures were being published for the first time to improve transparency.

She stressed inefficiency and poor financial management were unacceptable, and said teams of experts would be sent into struggling NHS organisations.

Opposition parties said the NHS faced a financial crisis, despite record funding of £76.4bn this year.

Mrs Hewitt stressed that most were managing their budgets successfully.

She also fully expected that the final deficit would be considerably smaller than current forecasts.

In a written statement, she said: "I have made the decision to publish the data because I want to make it clear that inefficiency and poor financial management are not acceptable."

The Health Secretary said that the equivalent forecast for last year predicted a £499m deficit.

In the end, the final audited figure for 2004/05 was less than half this amount at £219m.

She also emphasised that the estimated shortfall amounted to less than 1% of total NHS funding, and that two thirds was due to just 37, or 7%, of organisations.

Need to balance books

Underlining the need for NHS bodies to balance their books, she warned: "We therefore expect - and indeed intend to ensure - that the position at the end of this year will be significantly better than these mid-year forecasts."

Mrs Hewitt said the new turnaround teams would be sent to local health bodies that faced the biggest challenges.

"These teams will be experienced in resolving financial problems and managing NHS organisations.

"They will focus on ensuring the organisations deliver the efficiency and quality improvements needed to achieve both financial balance and better care for patients."

Earlier the Health Select Committee was told new contracts for consultants and GPs had cost the NHS almost £400m more than initially anticipated.

Agenda for Change - a package of new pay arrangements for other NHS staff - was also well over budget.

Compound effect

Sir Nigel Crisp, NHS chief executive, told the Health Select Committee that around 30% of the service's organisations were responsible for the deficit - roughly the same distribution as last year.

He said some organisations were struggling with the compound effect of previous overspends.

Richard Douglas, NHS director of finance, told the committee said NHS organisations always tended to be pessimistic about their projected level of overspend for the year.

Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said if the budgets of those organisations with a surplus was excluded the gross projected deficit was £948m.

He said: "Why, when the government is spending unprecedented amounts of money on the NHS are more hospitals and trusts in deficit?

"Why are services threatened and jobs being lost? Much of the money has been swallowed up in bureaucracy.

"Since 2000, an extra £1.6 billion (in real terms) has been spent on NHS administration staff.

"Patients will bear the brunt of this financial mismanagement as frontline services are cut to balance the books."

Instability

Steve Webb, for the Liberal Democrats, said the NHS was facing a financial crisis.

"The government's market-driven reforms are creating massive instability in the NHS.

"Many hospitals are being forced to make drastic and swingeing cuts.

"The roller coaster of NHS trust finances makes it impossible for hospital bosses to plan effectively. This is really no way to run the NHS."

John Appleby, of the independent think tank the King's Fund, said cash had been soaked up by increased pay demands, clinical negligence payments, and dealing with the EU working times directive.

He said: "It is essential that the government does not respond in an ad hoc way but instead introduces a system of support to enable NHS trusts and others to respond to emerging financial problems flexibly."

Jo Webber, of the NHS Confederation, which represents trusts and other NHS organisations, stressed that the deficit was only a tiny fraction of the overall budget.

She said: "We should not lose sight of the fact that NHS organisations and their staff are delivering real improvements in patient care - and most are doing that within budget."

---

To many paper pushers and to much beaurocracy me thinks......
I wonder who it was that put all the extra beaurocracy and pen pushing into the NHS to make it more efficient , accountable ,self sustaining and less dependant on the central government ?~;)
It wasn't the conservatives by any chance was it ~D ~D ~D

We should make up the deficit if there is one, simple as that, imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

To many paper pushers and to much beaurocracy me thinks......
I wonder who it was that put all the extra beaurocracy and pen pushing into the NHS to make it more efficient , accountable ,self sustaining and less dependant on the central government ?~;)
It wasn't the conservatives by any chance was it ~D ~D ~D

---

Actually old mate, it was Bliar ~;)

What's the difference nowadays?

The system was flawed from the start. So much attention is put on book-balancing and meeting quotas that it's inevitable service declines.

Socialized medicine inefficient! Whoever would have guessed?

Quote:

---

We should make up the deficit if there is one, simple as that, imo.

---

Did you miss the part about 'record funding', or do you think that blindly giving more money to people who have wasted so much is going to help?

Crazed Rabbit

Actually old mate, it was Bliar
Oh silly me , I thought the creation of a multitude of self governing trusts each with its own chain of beaurocracy , executives , accountants , auditors buyers , bidders , designers , PR consultants , managers , contractors .......was done by the Tories , same with the NHS quangos for yet another level of beaurocracy .~;)
Then again Blair is just Tory lite so it is down to Blair as well .~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Socialized medicine inefficient! Whoever would have guessed?



Did you miss the part about 'record funding', or do you think that blindly giving more money to people who have wasted so much is going to help?

Crazed Rabbit

---

I think we should be pumping more money than we do currecntly into the NHS, period. Labour has done great things funding wise - one of the reasons Blair is clearly not a Tory - but more needs to be done, we are still below the EU average for instance.

Plus there has been reforms, reforms which do take into account things such as accountability for performance and budgetting. We should make up the deficit.

I see you have choosen option b) Blindly giving more money to people who have wasted so much.

Quote:

---

He said: "Why, when the government is spending unprecedented amounts of money on the NHS are more hospitals and trusts in deficit?

"Why are services threatened and jobs being lost? Much of the money has been swallowed up in bureaucracy.

"Since 2000, an extra £1.6 billion (in real terms) has been spent on NHS administration staff.

"Patients will bear the brunt of this financial mismanagement as frontline services are cut to balance the books."

---

Looks like funding is not the issue. And if there have been reforms, why are they so low on money? There is obviously still a huge problem with waste and inefficiency and just giving them more money won't solve it.

And tell me, did the estimates for the cost of the NHS predict this? Was it supposed to be this expensive when it began? Or are all these costs something that only cropped up after the NHS was implemented, with its unplanned-for, but predictable, inefficiency?

Are you hoping the inherent problem of inefficiency will go away if you just ignore it and demand more money? It seems that for so many leftist plans, there's always 'more to be done' when it doesn't work out the way they thought it would. The problem is never with their plans, its always that they haven't got enough money.

Quote:

---

John Appleby, of the independent think tank the King's Fund, said cash had been soaked up by increased pay demands, clinical negligence payments, and dealing with the EU working times directive.

---

Looks like the EU is forcing your costs up.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

I think we should be pumping more money than we do currecntly into the NHS, period. Labour has done great things funding wise - one of the reasons Blair is clearly not a Tory - but more needs to be done, we are still below the EU average for instance.

---

Really? The public have been paying their contributions to the NHS for god knows how long and they still cant get it right and you want us to pay more!?!?!

I think we have done our bit. Im so disapointed in the whole system. I cant believe Im actually gonna say this but I think the Yanks might have the right idea...
They have no NHS and have to pay for treatment when they need it. So if I put what I would pay to my NHS contribution away in the bank, Ill just use it when I need it. At least this way Ill make some money on the interest!! (this is what any sensible person is doing with their pensions money now) Plus I hopefully wont have to wait 2 years when I finally do need a NHS operation.

This whole country reeks of mismanagement. NHS, pensions, student fees etc etc.

Mark my words, the labour solution to this will be simple. Raise NHS contributions. Standard labour problem solving, dont tackle the cause of the problem, just get more money and itll somehow be better. It may not happen soon but Tony will get there eventually. You read it here first!

Im actually suprised at you JAG, I thought even a devout Labour man like you would have come to the point where, Labour has had a chance to make its mark and failed.

NHS- broke
Pensions- broke, state contributions rising
Retirement age- rising!!! this sickens me
Students- fees costing more, debts rising
Housing- first time buyers completely screwed.
Transport- placed in the hands of profit mongers.

This country embarrasses me. ~:mecry:

Looks like the EU is forcing your costs up.
~D ~D ~D
Oh dear the EU is forcing cost up because it means they have to employ more doctors , but then again that saves on the payouts for the negligence cases because you don't have doctors doing 20 hour shifts in A&E making stupid mistkes because they are too tired to concentrate .

The solution is simple- raise taxes. You guys don't need money anyhow, the state will provide. ~D

£620 million? That's nothing compared to the MOD's £3 billion overspend a few years back.

Marcellus , would that be the £3 billion overspend on equipment that didn't even work or the good equipment that was turned into scrap during faulty maintainance?
Thats it !!!!! privatise the military , they will be far more efficient :bow:
Oh , but that was the privatised parts of the military that caused most of the overspend~:doh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Socialized medicine inefficient! Whoever would have guessed?



Did you miss the part about 'record funding', or do you think that blindly giving more money to people who have wasted so much is going to help?

Crazed Rabbit

---

In the recent socialized health care thread, wasn't it pointed out that the US government spends almost twice as much on health care as we do-not to mention the insurance paid by citizens themselves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Marcellus , would that be the £3 billion overspend on equipment that didn't even work or the good equipment that was turned into scrap during faulty maintainance?
Thats it !!!!! privatise the military , they will be far more efficient :bow:
Oh , but that was the privatised parts of the military that caused most of the overspend~:doh:

---

It would indeed. £3 billion overspent largly on four projects (Astute class submarine, Eurofighter Typhoon, Nimrods and Brimstone anti tank missile http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3421309.stm ). All of them run at least in part by BAE systems. Thank God for the private sector making everything so efficient.

If we're willing to find £3 billion for weapons, then I'm sure we can mange £620 million for public health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

In the recent socialized health care thread, wasn't it pointed out that the US government spends almost twice as much on health care as we do-not to mention the insurance paid by citizens themselves?

---

Though it should be remembered that they are spending it on a population five times as large as the UK's.

That figure was per capita. I'll try and find the link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

That figure was per capita. I'll try and find the link.

---

Per capita? By my calculations US government health spending would have to be at least £900 billion (at current exchange rates approximately $1.56 trillion) for their spending per capita to be twice as high as ours. The figure I found is for $584 billion ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/hhs.html right at the bottom of the page). This is about 75% of our spending per capita.

And quicker service, to boot! Who'd have thunk it?

Crazed Rabbit