mids
New Member
Posts: 58,748
|
NHS
Jul 3, 2023 17:43:28 GMT
Post by mids on Jul 3, 2023 17:43:28 GMT
And there we have it. some of the highest levels of spending internationally and still poor outcomes. "e’re going to hear a lot about the NHS this week: mostly tributes and praise – and even a few prayers – all in recognition of its 75th anniversary on Wednesday. The loudest criticism you’re likely to hear will be about underfunding – which is not the fault of NHS officials, really, but rather the fault of politicians who set the health service’s budget. The NHS is only falling short on patient outcomes, the logic goes, because it’s being denied resources in the first place. Is it really? New data published by the OECD this afternoon pops some of those birthday balloons. It reveals that the NHS actually remains one of the best-funded healthcare systems in the world. The numbers for 2022 are in, and as The Spectator’s data hub shows, the UK ranks sixth on the list for health expenditure as a percentage of GDP. The UK ties with the Swiss healthcare system – often held up as a gold standard for both funding and outcomes – by spending 11.3 per cent of GDP on healthcare. Countries across the world, known for getting far better outcomes than the NHS – including Denmark, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, the list goes on – are spending less. This much money being funnelled into the NHS is nothing new. In 2021, the NHS was thought to be the fifth-best funded system, according to the OECD. But the revised figures today bump it up to third place. Additional Covid spending (and recovery money) has seen the NHS’s place on these charts jump in recent years. Unsurprisingly, spending as a percentage of GDP was higher for the majority of countries in 2021 than it was last year, as the pandemic was still at its peak. But back in 2019 the UK was already spending well above the average OECD on healthcare: 10 per cent of GDP, compared to the average of 8.4 per cent. Make no mistake: in the UK, this money is being funnelled into the NHS. There is ‘no evidence of widespread privatisation of NHS services,’ according to the King's Fund’s report, published just a few months ago. The amount of money being spent on private provision not only remains in the single-digits: it remains at similar levels in 2019-20 as it did in 2012. So with internationally high levels of funding going into the health service, what explains its inability to deliver outcomes its neighbours manage to achieve? What more is needed, exactly, to make the patient experience in the UK look more like the plethora of countries that are spending less yet getting better results? These are just a couple of the many questions that should perhaps be asked this week, amidst the celebrations for our NHS." www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-nhs-isnt-underfunded/
|
|
|
NHS
Jul 3, 2023 18:17:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by Repat Van on Jul 3, 2023 18:17:00 GMT
Since I’ve been back I have only gone private (dentist, GP, consultant) and honestly I don’t think I can deal with the NHS waiting times.
People whine about doctors doing private work on strike but unless the NHA steps up on its rem structures those doctors will move a lot more of their work private just to make money.
|
|
|
NHS
Jul 3, 2023 18:20:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by Repat Van on Jul 3, 2023 18:20:56 GMT
And there we have it. some of the highest levels of spending internationally and still poor outcomes. "e’re going to hear a lot about the NHS this week: mostly tributes and praise – and even a few prayers – all in recognition of its 75th anniversary on Wednesday. The loudest criticism you’re likely to hear will be about underfunding – which is not the fault of NHS officials, really, but rather the fault of politicians who set the health service’s budget. The NHS is only falling short on patient outcomes, the logic goes, because it’s being denied resources in the first place. Is it really? New data published by the OECD this afternoon pops some of those birthday balloons. It reveals that the NHS actually remains one of the best-funded healthcare systems in the world. The numbers for 2022 are in, and as The Spectator’s data hub shows, the UK ranks sixth on the list for health expenditure as a percentage of GDP. The UK ties with the Swiss healthcare system – often held up as a gold standard for both funding and outcomes – by spending 11.3 per cent of GDP on healthcare. Countries across the world, known for getting far better outcomes than the NHS – including Denmark, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, the list goes on – are spending less. This much money being funnelled into the NHS is nothing new. In 2021, the NHS was thought to be the fifth-best funded system, according to the OECD. But the revised figures today bump it up to third place. Additional Covid spending (and recovery money) has seen the NHS’s place on these charts jump in recent years. Unsurprisingly, spending as a percentage of GDP was higher for the majority of countries in 2021 than it was last year, as the pandemic was still at its peak. But back in 2019 the UK was already spending well above the average OECD on healthcare: 10 per cent of GDP, compared to the average of 8.4 per cent. Make no mistake: in the UK, this money is being funnelled into the NHS. There is ‘no evidence of widespread privatisation of NHS services,’ according to the King's Fund’s report, published just a few months ago. The amount of money being spent on private provision not only remains in the single-digits: it remains at similar levels in 2019-20 as it did in 2012. So with internationally high levels of funding going into the health service, what explains its inability to deliver outcomes its neighbours manage to achieve? What more is needed, exactly, to make the patient experience in the UK look more like the plethora of countries that are spending less yet getting better results? These are just a couple of the many questions that should perhaps be asked this week, amidst the celebrations for our NHS." www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-nhs-isnt-underfunded/It would be very interesting to see that report. My suspicions are raised with the inclusion of Australia. What outcomes are being measured? How are they being measured and are they only looking at funding from direct taxation or including gap payments in the total (e.g in Australia Medicare sets a schedule for what different procedures costs. Citizens have to make up the difference (which is why Australia has such a high rate of people avoiding treatment due to cost) - have they counted the patient contribution?
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 58,748
|
NHS
Jul 3, 2023 18:33:27 GMT
Post by mids on Jul 3, 2023 18:33:27 GMT
No. It reports state funding only, which is exactly the way the British left want it. They start shrieking unconsolably whenever some sort of patient contribution is suggested (Waaaaaah! Privatisayshun!!!")
|
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 40,272
|
NHS
Jul 3, 2023 19:58:01 GMT
via mobile
Repat Van likes this
Post by voice on Jul 3, 2023 19:58:01 GMT
So the Specy agrees the government over the last 13 years has been inept and incompetent and have pissed away billions in their drive to run down the NHS so they can say, "look it's failing (ignore that we made it fail) let's priveryise it"
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 58,748
|
NHS
Jul 3, 2023 20:26:58 GMT
via mobile
Post by mids on Jul 3, 2023 20:26:58 GMT
Surprising as it might seem, the government doesn't run the NHS.
|
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 40,272
|
NHS
Jul 3, 2023 20:42:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by voice on Jul 3, 2023 20:42:00 GMT
Hahahahahaha
You here all week?
|
|
|
NHS
Jul 4, 2023 6:29:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by Repat Van on Jul 4, 2023 6:29:49 GMT
No. It reports state funding only, which is exactly the way the British left want it. They start shrieking unconsolably whenever some sort of patient contribution is suggested (Waaaaaah! Privatisayshun!!!") 1) People probably objected to patient contribution to avoid things such as this: “ A new Perspective article in The Medical Journal of Australia says rising out-of-pocket costs are creating barriers to health care, putting Australia’s most vulnerable at risk. There are concerns Australia’s most vulnerable, including people from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds and older Australians, are spending significant proportions of their incomes on out-of-pocket costs for health care. In a Perspective article published today in The Medical Journal of Australia, University of Technology Sydney (UTS) Professor Emily Callander writes that half of Australians with certain health conditions avoid seeking health care due to the cost.” insightplus.mja.com.au/2023/11/out-of-pocket-medical-costs-hurt-the-most-vulnerable/It’s very easy for the privileged such as yourself to mock those who point out the downsides of out of pocket patient contributions - you can afford to make them. 2) But the point is comparing outcomes solely with state expenditure is a crap comparison. It needs to compare total expenditure from all sources.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 58,748
|
NHS
Jul 4, 2023 8:09:57 GMT
via mobile
Post by mids on Jul 4, 2023 8:09:57 GMT
It's a highly useful way of comparing government spending on health care. Particularly here, since the establishment (BBC, Labour, guardian etc) are totally against any other way of paying for health care.
|
|
moggyonspeed
New Member
"Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat."
Posts: 7,231
|
NHS
Jul 4, 2023 8:39:22 GMT
Post by moggyonspeed on Jul 4, 2023 8:39:22 GMT
|
|
|
NHS
Jul 4, 2023 10:07:57 GMT
via mobile
Post by Repat Van on Jul 4, 2023 10:07:57 GMT
It's a highly useful way of comparing government spending on health care. Particularly here, since the establishment (BBC, Labour, guardian etc) are totally against any other way of paying for health care. It’s not useful if not comparing like for like. It’s silly to claim “we spend more and deliver worst outcomes” if we only look at state expenditure when other places have private expenditure added to that. It’s understating the total spend on healthcare. For an academic this is something you should be able to grasp fairly easily.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 58,748
|
NHS
Jul 4, 2023 16:31:22 GMT
Post by mids on Jul 4, 2023 16:31:22 GMT
It's hard to think of a more like for like comparison. Government spending on healthcare vs. errrrr... government spending on healthcare. What it does neatly is it exposes the NHS model and suggests we should do some mix of public and private like nearly every other country with universal healthcare does. We've got a huge array of other systems to pick and choose the best from.
|
|
|
NHS
Jul 4, 2023 16:44:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by Repat Van on Jul 4, 2023 16:44:23 GMT
It's hard to think of a more like for like comparison. Government spending on healthcare vs. errrrr... government spending on healthcare. What it does neatly is it exposes the NHS model and suggests we should do some mix of public and private like nearly every other country with universal healthcare does. We've got a huge array of other systems to pick and choose the best from. I know you are normally thick but this is even bad by your standards. It’s not a like for like comparison. If the claim is “oh we have worse outcomes but spend more” then you need to make sure that that there is no additional funding not being capture. If the UK metric is “government spending = total spending” and the Australian metric is “government spending + out of pocket private spending = total spending” then the comparison is not being performed correctly. Saying “we spend more” is inaccurate if your comparison has excluded a huge source of additional funding. It’s not hard - why are you struggling? (And if they ARE including all sources of funding then it’s a fair comparison but I cannot access the report to see that.)
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 58,748
|
NHS
Jul 4, 2023 16:51:57 GMT
Post by mids on Jul 4, 2023 16:51:57 GMT
It's (are you ready?) government spending on healthcare vs. government spending on healthcare. Not hard is it?
|
|
ootlg
New Member
Posts: 10,381
|
NHS
Jul 5, 2023 7:56:56 GMT
Post by ootlg on Jul 5, 2023 7:56:56 GMT
LBC phone-in yesterday someone said top-heavy management was the cause of most of the problems in the NHS. James O'Brien - increasingly cuntish - bullied and brow-beat him after interrupting everything he tried to say. There's a witch hunt going on. Again. Wokist bile.
|
|
|
NHS
Apr 11, 2024 21:28:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by perrykneeham on Apr 11, 2024 21:28:41 GMT
|
|
|
NHS
Apr 11, 2024 21:33:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by perrykneeham on Apr 11, 2024 21:33:51 GMT
To be fair, the gang culture is utterly entrenched on the non-clinical side. The NHS is, by a wide margin, the most corrupt organisation I have ever worked in. Small c corruption. People just not doing their jobs properly, or indeed at all.
I see my colleagues apologising for things they haven't done wrong, just to avoid any further investigation. This happens all the time. Jobs for the girls. Keep everything on the DL until retirement.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 58,748
|
Post by mids on Apr 11, 2024 21:48:20 GMT
At least he's not pulling the you-know-what card. Good man. Mind you, you'd need some white people around for that.
|
|
|
NHS
Apr 11, 2024 21:51:09 GMT
via mobile
Post by perrykneeham on Apr 11, 2024 21:51:09 GMT
Yeah, this will ultimately be about snouts in troughs.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 58,748
|
Post by mids on Apr 12, 2024 5:13:05 GMT
It does seem that there's no insult or wrong done that cold hard cash can't make all better.
|
|