Brexit NHS Funding Promise broken

[Pannonian]

Pre Brexit: Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week. Vote Leave, take control.

Post-Brexit: No extra money for NHS, Theresa May tells health chief

[Beskar]

The situation within the NHS is rather shocking, and the Tories are hell-bent on privatization which will be a disaster for the electorate. I don't think people who are pro-privatization actually realise the consequences and shit-storm they produce, or they are that rich they don't care. The price to 'enjoy' the same perks as the USA is approximately 10x the current cost we pay, with the privilege of 50% of the population unable to afford basic health care. This is especially targeting the most vulnerable, like our older population who occupy 2/3rd of NHS services. Don't need to worry about waiting times then since no one can afford to access the services.

For a brief price comparison, for a mother who needs to have a c-section, this costs the NHS approximately, £1755-2582, sounds expensive right? According to these statistics, the average bill in the USA is $50,000 (£39,000). That is what your government wants, it wants to save £2500 by making the rest of us pay £39,000.

Another thing not listed in your article Pannonian is the massive cuts to local and council social services. This means that carers need to be employed by the NHS, to ensure people at home are receiving treatment, adding significantly more costs to the bill. This was something previously covered by social care budgets which are being slashed and squeezed in the name of 'Austerity'.

Also by turning the system from preventive healthcare to reactionary healthcare, the cost to everyone and the economy is increased even more. I am an advocate for even more funding for the NHS, Mental Health services especially, so let me drop this here. These figures were from Seamus Watson, National Mental Health Lead, Public Health England who I was speaking to last Monday. He says that Mental Health is the largest cause of disability, with 1 in 4 adults, and this costs the UK economy (businesses, benefits, etc) approximately £105 billion per year. Just for comparison purposes, the budget of the entire NHS last year was £116.4 billion. and only £11.7 billion of this is tackling Mental Health. With further cuts we get in Mental Health, with horrendously overstretched services, the costs to the UK economy significantly increase. Then we spend our money on the of likes Trident, at £31 billion (+10 billion in reserve)... the fact is, if we actually put significant money into Mental Health, or event the EU-leavers promised 18.2 billion, the cost of MH to the economy would decrease that significantly, that we would be able to fund Trident from the gains of that.

[rory_20_uk]

Services that are not state operated are not the state's fault when they screw up - they can also blame the trains, fuel prices etc and be the good guys in standing up for consumers rather than being the ones who are at fault.

Health services need to be honest: certain things are too expensive to do and keeping the elderly alive costs more than we have since when they are better they continue to cost a fortune.

But no one wants that conversation - to cut beds for no-hope premature babies since the papers cite the one who bucks the odds, free drugs for "at risk" gay men (as having to use free condoms is so last millennium) and on course oncology and rare diseases - a bottomless pit where nigh on infinite money can be spent.

Private companies would have to rationalise as we all know has to happen.

[Beskar]

Health services need to be honest: certain things are too expensive to do and keeping the elderly alive costs more than we have since when they are better they continue to cost a fortune.

But no one wants that conversation - to cut beds for no-hope premature babies since the papers cite the one who bucks the odds, free drugs for "at risk" gay men (as having to use free condoms is so last millennium) and on course oncology and rare diseases - a bottomless pit where nigh on infinite money can be spent.

Private companies would have to rationalise as we all know has to happen.

The conversations are had a lot in health circles, or the ones I am in, but the consensus is pretty clear, we as a society are not going to abandon people to suffer and die, and I am glad we are not. You mention about older people and you are correct, they are the biggest users of the health service by a long mile, and they are also the ones who contributed to it the most. What solutions are you actually proposing? The implication of your statement is abandoning them, is that a position you are considering advocating, or the play of the devil?

Being honest, I am happy for us to 'waste' money to give people a fighting chance, I believe in a moral society and we shouldn't just let people die due to a low chance, then grumbling over a collectively insignificant amount. However, I do agree that some choices such be privately funded as they are purely optional, and some lifestyle drugs do receive heavy debate, but these are usually not sanctioned as CCGs are too underfunded to make provision for them.

[Montmorency]

Of course, with those complaints one has to realize that only the state can achieve service rationing - private companies will only focus on what gives them money, meaning a focus on high-risk and high-cost for those who can afford it.

Cancer research and treatment is booming in America precisely because that's where the money is for private industry. Same with things like end-of-life care and premature births.

[rory_20_uk]

The conversations are had a lot in health circles, or the ones I am in, but the consensus is pretty clear, we as a society are not going to abandon people to suffer and die, and I am glad we are not. You mention about older people and you are correct, they are the biggest users of the health service by a long mile, and they are also the ones who contributed to it the most. What solutions are you actually proposing? The implication of your statement is abandoning them, is that a position you are considering advocating, or the play of the devil?

Being honest, I am happy for us to 'waste' money to give people a fighting chance, I believe in a moral society and we shouldn't just let people die due to a low chance, then grumbling over a collectively insignificant amount. However, I do agree that some choices such be privately funded as they are purely optional, and some lifestyle drugs do receive heavy debate, but these are usually not sanctioned as CCGs are too underfunded to make provision for them.

I never said suffer. Palliative care used to be there to ensure there was no suffering.

The elderly have not necessarily contributed the most - especially since the cost of funding has shot up vastly. The solutions are either to continue to add money (no idea where this money is) or to ration the money there is. And to spend money giving some a chance means others are going to die who had a better chance. The money spent is not insignificant since of course it is not just the cost of the drugs, but the ongoing costs.

[Beskar]

I never said suffer. Palliative care used to be there to ensure there was no suffering.

I understand what you mean by that, but operations such as a hip replacement are not life-ending, and they could still be alive and kicking in 20 years time. So unless you are suggesting they should go without for 20 years in a situation where they are being disabled due to being unable to access services due to mobility.

I have to admit though, when I first read your last statement, I was reminded of this episode from Star Trek on a similar issue. In short, the custom on the planet was for its citizens to conduct a ritual suicide at the age of 60, to "avoid old age, infirmity, indignity, dependence on others, and the cruel uncertainty about when the end would come".

The elderly have not necessarily contributed the most - especially since the cost of funding has shot up vastly. The solutions are either to continue to add money (no idea where this money is) or to ration the money there is. And to spend money giving some a chance means others are going to die who had a better chance. The money spent is not insignificant since of course it is not just the cost of the drugs, but the ongoing costs.

The thing is, preventative health measures over the long-term have proven to save significantly more than the costs incurred over the life-time. So whilst you might complain lets say, £1000 treatment, if that treatment then saves us £10,000 down the line due to advances stages of a illness due to lack of treatment, then that is a saving of £9,000. There is then the added benefits of this on the economy, as it means that person can work more, earn more money, spend more money, which means as a society, we just saved even more. Given your background, you should have access to this evidence yourself to know I am not pulling this out of a hat. Could start picking things at random, even arguments such as Early Intervention Services for Psychosis are a good example, as in catching young people early during their most vulnerable, we prevent them from having to go into fully staffed inpatient units, become isolated and disconnected from society, being out of work, etc. So putting in money now means we will reap the benefits in the future. At the moment, we still do not have this fully implemented, so we are currently tackling those who are in that situation, and trying to provide support now for those who need assistance (in typical underfunded and undervalued NHS way).

There is a chronic bed shortage for Mental Health at the moment too, and some of the 'short term' decisions are actually costing the NHS significantly more money, due to how the system works. They close down hospitals in areas, combining them into larger hospitals with around 60% of the bed capacity of the Hospitals being closed down, then having to send off and pay for the patients to be in Private Hospitals. As you can imagine, the Private Hospitals charge 3x the rate of the trust providing the same service. So it is a practice of closing 100 beds, forcing those patients to occupy 100 private beds, so effectively costing the trust the price of 300 beds.

As for the statement about 'means others are going to die who had a better chance', this is not actually the case. What actually suffers are the non-life threatening treatments or further cuts to Mental Health services, even though Depression is the biggest cause of death in the country.

[Husar]

Of course, with those complaints one has to realize that only the state can achieve service rationing - private companies will only focus on what gives them money, meaning a focus on high-risk and high-cost for those who can afford it.

Cancer research and treatment is booming in America precisely because that's where the money is for private industry. Same with things like end-of-life care and premature births.

And while that may sound cynical, why invent a quick cure if a year-long treatment basically means you get a long-term customer?
Before you say that's a stupid conspiracy theory, remember that CEO who raised a drug's price 5000 times just to make more profit.
The price elasticity for a cure to a deadly illness is probably really, really low.

[Fragony]

Privatising healthcare didn't go so well here, some things work but for some it just isn't affordable

[Gilrandir]

Health services need to be honest: certain things are too expensive to do and keeping the elderly alive costs more than we have since when they are better they continue to cost a fortune.

Will funeral cost less?

[Fragony]

Will funeral cost less?

Healthcare is incredibly expensive, all sorts of specialists have to there at all times. I also think that when it's futile you should stop trying at some point and make everything as comfortable as possible instead. Not because of the money but because it's the most humane thing to do. Euthanisia is a good thing we have here in the Netherlands, just skipping the hard parts (it's horrible to see in reality trust me). Privitasation mwah, you Brits have a case-study llaying around here for free because here we already did that, opinions are very varied. Specialists are very pleased because they get better equipment and more time, and patients not so much as they have to pay much more. I nearlylost my left eye in a match last year, I was treated exceptionally well. Costed me only 350 euro own risk with the insurance-company, real costs were probably tenfold that. Downside is that not everybody can just pay that (neither could I thanks mom). Upside here at least that if someone really can't afford it there is a special fund for them, needs balancing.

[rory_20_uk]

I understand what you mean by that, but operations such as a hip replacement are not life-ending, and they could still be alive and kicking in 20 years time. So unless you are suggesting they should go without for 20 years in a situation where they are being disabled due to being unable to access services due to mobility.

I have to admit though, when I first read your last statement, I was reminded of this episode from Star Trek on a similar issue. In short, the custom on the planet was for its citizens to conduct a ritual suicide at the age of 60, to "avoid old age, infirmity, indignity, dependence on others, and the cruel uncertainty about when the end would come".



The thing is, preventative health measures over the long-term have proven to save significantly more than the costs incurred over the life-time. So whilst you might complain lets say, £1000 treatment, if that treatment then saves us £10,000 down the line due to advances stages of a illness due to lack of treatment, then that is a saving of £9,000. There is then the added benefits of this on the economy, as it means that person can work more, earn more money, spend more money, which means as a society, we just saved even more. Given your background, you should have access to this evidence yourself to know I am not pulling this out of a hat. Could start picking things at random, even arguments such as Early Intervention Services for Psychosis are a good example, as in catching young people early during their most vulnerable, we prevent them from having to go into fully staffed inpatient units, become isolated and disconnected from society, being out of work, etc. So putting in money now means we will reap the benefits in the future. At the moment, we still do not have this fully implemented, so we are currently tackling those who are in that situation, and trying to provide support now for those who need assistance (in typical underfunded and undervalued NHS way).

There is a chronic bed shortage for Mental Health at the moment too, and some of the 'short term' decisions are actually costing the NHS significantly more money, due to how the system works. They close down hospitals in areas, combining them into larger hospitals with around 60% of the bed capacity of the Hospitals being closed down, then having to send off and pay for the patients to be in Private Hospitals. As you can imagine, the Private Hospitals charge 3x the rate of the trust providing the same service. So it is a practice of closing 100 beds, forcing those patients to occupy 100 private beds, so effectively costing the trust the price of 300 beds.

As for the statement about 'means others are going to die who had a better chance', this is not actually the case. What actually suffers are the non-life threatening treatments or further cuts to Mental Health services, even though Depression is the biggest cause of death in the country.

Fixing those who are economically active is of course economically beneficial. But that is never the problem - the population is ageing and more and more treatments are there to help prolong existence (often not even quality of life). There is no economic benefit to this since everyone after retirement is costing vastly more - keeping an elderly patient alive for another 24 hours in a coma in ICU helps no one.

Orphan diseases when a treatment is found costs hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.

That is not to say that there are areas of healthcare that could and should be treated better - that requires withdrawing money from other areas. This is just sensible.

Mental illness and drugs policy should be sorted out as both are a mess and a massive drag on society.

Since everyone dies, the costs of funerals are not that important - a nursing home can easily cost £100,000 in the UK annually.

[Fragony]

You are so cold-hearted Rory, but I secretly know that you are right

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pre Brexit: Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week. Vote Leave, take control.

Post-Brexit: No extra money for NHS, Theresa May tells health chief

Thread title would be more Apt if Boris was PM.

As it is, let's be reasonable here, the Tories are not "dead set" on Privatisation of the NHS, that's very much a fringe position in the UK - most Tory voters won't support it and nor with their MP's.

It's another example of a "nasty party" smear - i.e. bullshit that's been repeated so often people tend to believe it.

Aside from that, afaik the NHS already takes up the greatest portion of the Budget, why does it need more money?

It needs to spend its money more wisely, part of that is carefully considering who should be treated with a view to recovery and who is beyond recovering and simply being forced to persist in misery and suffering.

Of course, as with anything these days, the greatest cost is people.

If you think the current "Tory" government is ruthless you might ask me how I would deal with those junior doctors refusing to carry out their vocation until they were paid more money to work late.

[Montmorency]

If you think the current "Tory" government is ruthless you might ask me how I would deal with those junior doctors refusing to carry out their vocation until they were paid more money to work late.

Give them less than they demand?

[Brenus]

"If you think the current "Tory" government is ruthless you might ask me how I would deal with those junior doctors refusing to carry out their vocation until they were paid more money to work late." How? Their vocation, as you mentioned, so how? Is it capitalism, market laws? Apply only for railways workers and civil servants?

[Pannonian]

Thread title would be more Apt if Boris was PM.

As it is, let's be reasonable here, the Tories are not "dead set" on Privatisation of the NHS, that's very much a fringe position in the UK - most Tory voters won't support it and nor with their MP's.

It's another example of a "nasty party" smear - i.e. bullshit that's been repeated so often people tend to believe it.

Aside from that, afaik the NHS already takes up the greatest portion of the Budget, why does it need more money?

It needs to spend its money more wisely, part of that is carefully considering who should be treated with a view to recovery and who is beyond recovering and simply being forced to persist in misery and suffering.

Of course, as with anything these days, the greatest cost is people.

If you think the current "Tory" government is ruthless you might ask me how I would deal with those junior doctors refusing to carry out their vocation until they were paid more money to work late.

Talk to the moderators if you have a beef with the thread title. I posted it in the EU referendum thread before it got split off. You can see that in the title of the first few posts in this thread.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"If you think the current "Tory" government is ruthless you might ask me how I would deal with those junior doctors refusing to carry out their vocation until they were paid more money to work late." How? Their vocation, as you mentioned, so how? Is it capitalism, market laws? Apply only for railways workers and civil servants?

They need more than £22,000 in their first year?

I do not think so, they want more money and to get it they were willing to sacrifice patient care.

[rory_20_uk]

They need more than £22,000 in their first year?

I do not think so, they want more money and to get it they were willing to sacrifice patient care.

Indeed. In the 1990's, junior doctors who worked the weekend worked Friday, Friday night, Saturday, Saturday night, Sunday, Sunday night and then Monday. They didn't complain and certainly not about patient safety! Cardiac Arrest was a great series that was based on the silly hours and dreadful support. Viewed as realistic by doctors and uncomfortably realistic by patients.

Why no complaints? Well... they did get paid for all these hours and if they were nice to the nurses their sleep wasn't too badly affected (I wouldn't have coped).

Now their hours are moved around to work Saturdays for no extra money and they are concerned they will shake with rage it'll put patients in danger (since complaining that they don't want to work Saturdays hardly wins sympathy).

[rory_20_uk]

You are so cold-hearted Rory, but I secretly know that you are right

I get involved with a lot of health economics these days (not building the models admittedly). Capitalism works on money, not tears, fluffy teddy bears or good intentions.

That we let people die because we as a society refuse to face reality is IMO worse.

[Brenus]

"They need more than £22,000 in their first year? I do not think so, they want more money and to get it they were willing to sacrifice patient care." This was not the question. The question was how will you oblige doctors to work? One upon a time, governments were sending troopers to collect garbage, mine the mines etc. How do you do with doctors?
As Rory pointed out "Capitalism works on money, not tears, fluffy teddy bears or good intentions". I am against this view and think we can change it.
But until then that is the reality of this world.
We paid/rescued bankers who ruined the world economy, we are paying insane bonuses to parasite CEO whose only merit is to plunder industries, businesses and put hundred of thousands workers in the street in the name of making money (efficiency"), so why doctors should be an exception and work in the health industry and not having money of it? Chemical and pharmaceutical companies just do this.

[Beskar]

If you think the current "Tory" government is ruthless you might ask me how I would deal with those junior doctors refusing to carry out their vocation until they were paid more money to work late.

I am sure it won't be as ruthless as you would like to be treated yourself in an overworked and underpaid position. The idea that Junior Doctors refusing to "work late" as if they are punctual on the dot is simply ludicrous. Every Junior Doctor I have met in 9 years on frontline NHS services pretty much stayed behind and worked for free, putting their patients first, on every single shift. if this was asked of you, you would be flailing your arms, shouting about why you have to remain behind when the clock is done. These are people working over 60 hours a week minimum. The idea you can even utter such a comment shows the complete isolation from the facts, naivety you have on the issue, and contempt you have for these people.

They need more than £22,000 in their first year?

I do not think so, they want more money and to get it they were willing to sacrifice patient care.

For a 64~ hour week, playing a very important role in managing the responsibility of peoples life and treatment in their hands? Basic maths works that out as £6.60 per hour. It is a complete steal, and Hospitals are taking them for muggins. You get better wages at Starbucks without having to do a very demanding and intensive studying for 7 years, racking up an ungodly amount of student debt.

You should be glad that people operate on a moral imperative to do work far below the financial reward, and having to work 50% more hours in the week too.

Personally, I would prefer Junior Doctors to get capped in the working time directive. But unfortunately, they are in so short supply, that the overtime costs will blow up the NHS budget more.

Indeed. In the 1990's, junior doctors who worked the weekend worked Friday, Friday night, Saturday, Saturday night, Sunday, Sunday night and then Monday. They didn't complain and certainly not about patient safety! Cardiac Arrest was a great series that was based on the silly hours and dreadful support. Viewed as realistic by doctors and uncomfortably realistic by patients.

Why no complaints? Well... they did get paid for all these hours and if they were nice to the nurses their sleep wasn't too badly affected (I wouldn't have coped).

Do you really think those working conditions are satisfactory? You pretty much came out and said they are not, and you highlight this is not a modern thing, but something that has been going on for years. The fact you had to rely on good will of the Nurses to allow you to have a couple of hours asleep in a seat in a corner is definitely unacceptable. As a patient, do you really want your old junior doctor self treating you? They just got rudely prodded awake by their bleeper, coming to you half-a-sleep, rather groggy, and expecting them to make decision on your treatment/healthcare?

You also said yourself, world runs on money, not crocodile tears or fluffy bunnies. If market forces were in effect, the wages of Junior Doctors would significantly increase, and they probably even get better hours and treatment. There would also probably be up-skilling of Nurses and other allied Professionals, with more Nurse Prescribers, and other, to reduce the burden on services.

[Montmorency]

You also said yourself, world runs on money, not crocodile tears or fluffy bunnies. If market forces were in effect, the wages of Junior Doctors would significantly increase, and they probably even get better hours and treatment. There would also probably be up-skilling of Nurses and other allied Professionals, with more Nurse Prescribers, and other, to reduce the burden on services.

Unsure - there's something of a tradition, at least in America, to overwork residents and "junior doctors" far more than is needed, on the grounds that it "builds character".

Technically the same protocols are employed in the fledgling of raw recruits in the military.

[rory_20_uk]

I am sure it won't be as ruthless as you would like to be treated yourself in an overworked and underpaid position. The idea that Junior Doctors refusing to "work late" as if they are punctual on the dot is simply ludicrous. Every Junior Doctor I have met in 9 years on frontline NHS services pretty much stayed behind and worked for free, putting their patients first, on every single shift. if this was asked of you, you would be flailing your arms, shouting about why you have to remain behind when the clock is done. These are people working over 60 hours a week minimum. The idea you can even utter such a comment shows the complete isolation from the facts, naivety you have on the issue, and contempt you have for these people.



For a 64~ hour week, playing a very important role in managing the responsibility of peoples life and treatment in their hands? Basic maths works that out as £6.60 per hour. It is a complete steal, and Hospitals are taking them for muggins. You get better wages at Starbucks without having to do a very demanding and intensive studying for 7 years, racking up an ungodly amount of student debt.

You should be glad that people operate on a moral imperative to do work far below the financial reward, and having to work 50% more hours in the week too.

Personally, I would prefer Junior Doctors to get capped in the working time directive. But unfortunately, they are in so short supply, that the overtime costs will blow up the NHS budget more.



Do you really think those working conditions are satisfactory? You pretty much came out and said they are not, and you highlight this is not a modern thing, but something that has been going on for years. The fact you had to rely on good will of the Nurses to allow you to have a couple of hours asleep in a seat in a corner is definitely unacceptable. As a patient, do you really want your old junior doctor self treating you? They just got rudely prodded awake by their bleeper, coming to you half-a-sleep, rather groggy, and expecting them to make decision on your treatment/healthcare?

You also said yourself, world runs on money, not crocodile tears or fluffy bunnies. If market forces were in effect, the wages of Junior Doctors would significantly increase, and they probably even get better hours and treatment. There would also probably be up-skilling of Nurses and other allied Professionals, with more Nurse Prescribers, and other, to reduce the burden on services.

No it was not fine and probably unsafe - that's my point! The doctors had no issue with unsafe as long as the money was good. Now the hours are less pleasant they bemoan safety.

[Beskar]

Unsure - there's something of a tradition, at least in America, to overwork residents and "junior doctors" far more than is needed, on the grounds that it "builds character".

Technically the same protocols are employed in the fledgling of raw recruits in the military.

I realised that after my post, they seemed rather overworked in the TV series, Scrubs. I was thinking of the economics of short-on-supply and large demand for the services they offer. Though the fact Junior Doctors need to do the work to become Doctors in their own right, probably means they can be held over a barrel for ransom.

No it was not fine and probably unsafe - that's my point! The doctors had no issue with unsafe as long as the money was good. Now the hours are less pleasant they bemoan safety.

I will have to concede that I haven't looked back at the previous campaigning done on behalf of Junior Doctors, I would have thought it was an issue that was constantly challenged with it both being unsafe and bad money, and it simply hit a boiling point with further cuts. I have to be honest, the job they have looks rough and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. From what I have seen, they deserve to have less hours, as it would be more humane on them, and would lead to increased patient safety. (I have no issue if they choose to work more, that is then a choice.)

[Brenus]

"The doctors had no issue with unsafe as long as the money was good. Now the hours are less pleasant they bemoan safety." So, you do agree that now it is both unsafe and crap money.
So, they are right to go on strike, as one of these two reasons is enough by itself?

[rory_20_uk]

If they want to bitch about pay and conditions, then do so. I'm fine with that. Although given it is a final salary pension, relatively early retirement along with the possibility of vast sums of money for private work I'm not sure how bad the pay is.

But they are hiding behind safety whilst making things less safe for those they supposedly care for.

[Brenus]

"But they are hiding behind safety whilst making things less safe for those they supposedly care for." They are not hiding. They make it clear that money is crap for this job, as far as I read Metro newspaper (free newspaper).
Well, in life, you can decide to do tiring and dangerous jobs if the money is good. But, it money is not, you can decide it is not worth. And it is in your right to strike if the conditions you did agree change.
And, of course, after Brexit, no one can really think UK will hire some European trained doctors/nurse, because, well, UK voted against EU immigration. So, either UK will hired none European doctors (not good for the ones who vote Brexit on the grounds of controlling immigration) or you will have to give doctors want they want. Actual capitalist "laws" market resolving problems in action.
Wasn't the reason of Brexit, taking back control on UK decisions?
And all this even before Brexit!!!
The other bit is: "they supposedly care for.". Well, some of them could say it was a choice to make good money, nothing to do with "taking care of", like the one working in the City. Good job, a bit risky but well paid etc, so if not well paid, strike. You try to impose a moral judgement when you are the one who wrote "world runs on money, not crocodile tears or fluffy bunnies".
In one hand you claimed money is every thing, but an the other hand you suddenly shift to a moral position, as if some jobs should work on ethical grounds when others should work on "making money as much as you can without any sort of back-draw".
You have to choose. Well, sort of...

[Kralizec]

Thread title would be more Apt if Boris was PM.

He's a member of the current government. If he was serious about the promise he could resign in protest. At the minimum some explanation is required.

[Sarmatian]

Well, the logical answer is that UK is still part of EU, so nothing changed in that regard. Britain still pays that money to EU.

Of course, evem if it weren't for that, Britain still wont be able to transfer that money to NHS for two reasons:
1) the sum is lower than advertised
2) UK would be forced to spend programes that are now funded by EU