INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

The future of the NHS (if any)

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1381 Post by Alan H » October 19th, 2015, 1:57 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Dear Jeremy
Dear Jeremy,

I write to you as a junior doctor on the verge of becoming a consultant. I write to you as a family member with young nephews and a niece, and parents about to enter older age. I write to you as a patient dying of cancer. Therefore the NHS is a central and vital part of my life.

Three weeks ago I came pretty close to dying from a serious consequence of cancer therapy. It was the junior doctors and nurses, not the Consultants who got me better from that episode. The professionalism and compassion from these young people was amazing.

Junior doctors have a huge amount of responsibility, even from day one after graduation. I’ve saved a fair few lives in my career. I’ve also been so tired that I could barely see straight after my seventh consecutive night shift. Protecting our young doctors so they can work, develop and flourish is essential and as Secretary of State is part of your responsibility. Rewarding them properly for their dedication and hard work is only fair…

I was a junior doctor when the MTAS debacle happened which saw many of my friends and colleagues leave the country. Many have since returned, but your plan will see a much larger exodus of young talented doctors to the rest of the world.

Please do not impose your ridiculously unfair contract on us. Sadly I think we are probably only your first target; no doubt you will be coming for the nurses, midwifes, physiotherapists, dieticians, speech therapists, ward clerks next… The NHS is a cornerstone of the United Kingdom. I am proud to work for it and would not want to receive cancer treatment anywhere else. Please do not destroy it for future generations.

An extremely worried and angry doctor and patient,

Kate
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1382 Post by Dave B » October 19th, 2015, 5:00 pm

Hope he hears you, Kate.

But I will not hold my breath, "hear" is an important part of "heart" - not sure if he has one.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1383 Post by Alan H » October 20th, 2015, 11:15 am

Nothing of even the slightest concern here: UK’s largest online pharmacy fined £130,000 for selling patients’ data to scammers.
The ICO determined that, through a direct marketing company called Alchemy Direct Media (UK) Ltd, Pharmacy2U executives unlawfully and unfairly sold the personal data of over 21,000 NHS patients and P2U customers either directly, or through intermediaries, to:

Australian Lottery fraudsters [3] targeting male pensioners who were more likely to have chronic health conditions, or cognitive impairments;
a Jersey-based ‘healthcare supplement’ company [4] which the Advertising Standards Authority ruled against for “misleading advertising” and “unauthorised health claims”;
and a UK charity which used the details to solicit donations [5] for people with learning disabilities.
Nope. Nothing at all. Nothing.*





* Just** a story about a online pharmacy, Pharmacy2U, selling on patient data to scammers.




** Except Pharmacy2U is 20% owned by EMIS, the single largest provider of GP IT systems across England, and EMIS’ current Chief Executive is also a Director of Pharmacy2U.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1384 Post by Altfish » October 20th, 2015, 12:18 pm

Alan H wrote:Nothing of even the slightest concern here: UK’s largest online pharmacy fined £130,000 for selling patients’ data to scammers.
The ICO determined that, through a direct marketing company called Alchemy Direct Media (UK) Ltd, Pharmacy2U executives unlawfully and unfairly sold the personal data of over 21,000 NHS patients and P2U customers either directly, or through intermediaries, to:

Australian Lottery fraudsters [3] targeting male pensioners who were more likely to have chronic health conditions, or cognitive impairments;
a Jersey-based ‘healthcare supplement’ company [4] which the Advertising Standards Authority ruled against for “misleading advertising” and “unauthorised health claims”;
and a UK charity which used the details to solicit donations [5] for people with learning disabilities.
Nope. Nothing at all. Nothing.*





* Just** a story about a online pharmacy, Pharmacy2U, selling on patient data to scammers.




** Except Pharmacy2U is 20% owned by EMIS, the single largest provider of GP IT systems across England, and EMIS’ current Chief Executive is also a Director of Pharmacy2U.
I'm not in the slightest worried....erm :angry:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1385 Post by Alan H » October 22nd, 2015, 10:55 am

The editor of the bmj, Fiona Godlee, has to write to Jeremy Hunt:
The Right Honourable Jeremy Hunt MP
Secretary of State for Health
Department of Health
Richmond House
79 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2NS

20 October 2015

Dear Secretary of State,

I am writing to register my concern about the way in which you have publicly misrepresented an academic article published in The BMJ.

The article, by Freemantle et al, reports an analysis of 30 day mortality after admission to hospital and finds a statistical excess of deaths in patients admitted at weekends. What it does not do is apportion any cause for that excess, nor does it take a view on what proportion of those deaths might be avoidable. Despite the authors’ very clear statements to this effect in the paper and elsewhere, you have repeatedly told MPs and the public via media interviews that these deaths are due to poor staffing at weekends, with a particular emphasis on medical staffing.  This clearly implies that you believe these excess deaths are avoidable.

I ask you to publicly clarify the statements you have made in relation to this article to show that you fully understand the issues involved. We all want the very best health service for patients and the public. Misusing data to mislead the public is not the way to achieve this.

Yours sincerely

Fiona Godlee
Editor-in-chief
fgodlee@bmj.com
She addresses him as 'Right' and 'Honourable'. I can't see why either of these apply.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1386 Post by Alan H » October 22nd, 2015, 11:04 am

A start, but even this doesn't tell the whole story: Jeremy Hunt 'misrepresented weekend deaths data'
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1387 Post by Altfish » October 22nd, 2015, 11:31 am

Alan H wrote:A start, but even this doesn't tell the whole story: Jeremy Hunt 'misrepresented weekend deaths data'
Unfortunately, this government and the likes of Hunt in particular wouldn't recognise evidence if they saw it; especially if it conflicts with their ingrained dogma. Mind you the other parties are not a lot better.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1388 Post by Alan H » October 29th, 2015, 6:58 pm

Jeremy 'liar' Hunt: Jeremy Hunt admits junior doctors who work the longest hours will actually have their pay cut
Jeremy Hunt yesterday said that “not a single junior doctor will get a pay cut compared to their current contract” in an effort to calm medics who fears cuts to anti-social hours payments.

But Mr Hunt this morning confirmed that a “small minority” of the medics who worked over 56 hours would see their pay reduced for safety reasons.
“There’s a very small minority of doctors who will be working more than an average of 56 hours and at the moment they get paid what’s called colloquially in the NHS ‘danger money’,” he told BBC’s Breakfast programme.
Not one of several thousand doctors who completed a survey today had ever heard of it being called 'danger money'.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1389 Post by Dave B » October 29th, 2015, 7:04 pm

Did he mean they will have their hours, and therefore their income, cut?

Save us from ministers (and/or media types) who cannot write other than accurate quotes or reports!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1390 Post by Alan H » October 29th, 2015, 9:27 pm

Alan H wrote:Not one of several thousand doctors who completed a survey today had ever heard of it being called 'danger money'.
Screenshot from 2015-10-29 1.png
Screenshot from 2015-10-29 1.png (152.1 KiB) Viewed 1638 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1391 Post by Alan H » October 30th, 2015, 10:52 am

That's Jeremy 'liar' Hunt to you and me: The Fallacy of Hunt
There are no answers yet, only questions.
To steamroll through changes to try to fix an unknown is haphazard and foolhardy. Or perhaps he has an alterior political agenda? Why else would the health secretary ignore the pleas and calls from the ENTIRE health workforce (including all the Royal Colleges) who have unparalleled insight into the workings of the NHS?

I am no politician.

Mr Hunt’s weakness with numbers is apparent. I, however, am trained to interpret scientific research. To analyse and critique data for the sole purpose of improving outcomes for my patients.

Patient safety is my calling. Is it truly yours Mr Hunt?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1392 Post by Alan H » October 30th, 2015, 10:58 am

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1393 Post by Alan H » October 30th, 2015, 11:43 am

GP academic gives Hunt tips on appraising evidence after weekend mortality claims
A leading GP academic has issued Jeremy Hunt with a free copy of her book on appraising scientific evidence after the health secretary has been condemned for misrepresenting statistics on weekend mortality.

Professor Trisha Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences at the Univeristy of Oxford and a practising GP, today tweeted a letter to the health secretary highlighting key sections in the enclosed copy of her book ‘How to Read a Paper’.
It's a great book - not that long, but very east to read. It should be mandatory reading for all politicians and civil servants.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1394 Post by Alan H » October 31st, 2015, 10:42 am

Foreigners may be charged for A&E treatment under new proposals
Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, is considering whether to charge foreigners for using ambulances and visiting A&E in a move that could further escalate tensions with the medical profession. In a bid to raise money, Hunt is expected to announce a consultation within the next month on whether the NHS should charge patients from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) for emergency treatment.
But will they take American Express?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1395 Post by Alan H » October 31st, 2015, 10:44 am

Tory MP Philip Davies speaks for 90 minutes to stop carers getting free hospital parking
Tory MP Philip Davies has blocked a law that would give carers free parking at hospitals by staging what appears to have been a 90 minute filibuster.

Two other Conservative MPs also spoke for an hour and 20 minutes, meaning that MPs ran out of time to vote on the law.

There is no limit to the amount of time MPs speak during a Private Member’s Bill debate, which means if they speak for long enough they can effectively "talk out legislation"

Tory MPs Christopher Chope, David Nuttall and Health Minister Alistair Burt also spoke for long periods, before the bell was run to signal the end of the debate.

Julie Cooper, the Labour MP who drew up the Hospital Parking Charges Bill, called Davies’ filibuster “shameless”.

It’s not the first time this week Mr Davies’ name has been in the news for negative reasons. Earlier he was subject to criticism for suggesting there be a “men’s rights” debate in the House of Commons.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1396 Post by Alan H » November 5th, 2015, 9:08 pm

Ah. The Jeremy 'liar' Hunt effect: Results of the Hunt effect surveys in response to “Increased mortality associated with weekend hospital admission: a case for expanded seven day services?”
We present here the results of a 2-week national survey conducted between 6-20 October 2015 aimed at determining the overall impact of what has been termed colloquially as the “Hunt effect” – patients presenting, usually early in the week, despite having had symptoms over the weekend due to concerns that “there are no doctors” during this period.
Two deaths were reported as a result of delayed presentation, whilst 31.7% of cases suffered long-term, irreversible morbidity (Figure 2). Overall, 82.4% were deemed to have had a worse outcome as a result of their delayed presentation and 90% were reported as having the potential to be life-threatening. Of the cases reported, 2.5% involved children, with other patients being admitted under adult medicine (45%), adult surgery (12.5%), obstetrics & gynaecology (5%) and psychiatry (2.5%). Worryingly, 10% were admitted for high dependency or intensive care. 56.1% reported that patients would have needed shorter hospital admissions had they presented earlier and 29.3% reported that no admission would have been needed at all if prompt medical attention had been sought.

Although this study, like the study by Freemantle et al. cannot definitively prove causality, it is concerning that there is an association between Mr. Hunt’s comments in July and October 2015 about the apparent lack of a 24/7 NHS and an increasing number of patients not presenting to frontline services in a timely manner, thereby affecting their clinical outcomes and ultimately jeopardising their safety.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1397 Post by Alan H » November 6th, 2015, 10:52 am

The Devolution Bill and the NHS: what will it mean?
The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill is moving quickly through parliament, but its implications for the NHS remain unclear. In a guest blog for the Nuffield Trust, our Senior Associate Sharon Lamb, Partner at Capsticks Solicitors LLP, examines some of the important issues and unanswered questions that need to be considered.

The Conservative Government has made devolution one of its central policy reforms this Parliament.

The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill may be one of the boldest steps in the transformation of public and NHS services for a generation, but its implications for NHS law and services, as well as whether it will lead to major changes to NHS structures, are much less clear.

The Bill sets out a transformational structure for unified public services and holds the key for significant change to NHS services. This is because the Bill creates a new over-arching framework to transfer functions of NHS bodies (and almost all other public authorities) to local authorities. If the framework tools were used to their fullest extent across the country, most of the NHS could be transferred to local authorities meaning a bigger re-structuring than in 2012.

But, because this is just a framework with powers to be used in the future and in areas which are not yet named, it’s difficult to predict exactly how big a change it will be.
Just a reminder of the 'promises' of David 'call me Dave' Cameron and Andrew Lansley:
the Conservatives repeatedly promised before the general election that there would be no more "top-down reorganisations" of the NHS (Andrew Lansley, Conservative Party press release, 11 July 2007). In a speech at the Royal College of Pathologists on 2 November 2009, Cameron said: "With the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS."

In his 2006 Conservative conference speech, he said: "So I make this commitment to the NHS and all who work in it. No more pointless reorganisations."
So, they pushed through a top-down re-organisation of the NHS in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Is the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill the next ideologically driven top-down reorganisation of the NHS?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1398 Post by Dave B » November 6th, 2015, 2:26 pm

"Politician" = "liar"

Nothing new there...
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1399 Post by Alan H » November 6th, 2015, 9:56 pm

What a lovely man, ensuring we have access to cheap drugs in these times of austerity...

Tory health minister deliberately blocks law to give NHS cheap drugs when patents expire
A Conservative health minister has deliberately blocked a new law to provide cheap and effective drugs for the NHS by championing medicines whose patents have expired.

Alistair Burt spoke for nearly half an hour to “filibuster” the proposed Off-Patent Drugs Bill, a plan that had cross-party support from backbenchers.

Because the proposed law is not supported by the Government it only has a limited amount of time to be debated in Parliament, or has to be shelved.
The proposed law would have compelled the Government to seek new licences for medicines that were not covered by patents but which could benefit patients.

Currently, such medicines tend to go un-licensed because there is no profit incentive for pharmaceutical companies to bring forward an application for a licence.
Ah. That'll be the reason...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1400 Post by Dave B » November 6th, 2015, 10:12 pm

I'm confused, does this mean that cheap off-patent drugs will be available or will not be available?

The sentence
A Conservative health minister has deliberately blocked a new law to provide cheap and effective drugs for the NHS by championing medicines whose patents have expired
is at least confusing. To me at least!

I think it says he has blocked a new law that would have prevented the use of off-patent drugs. I think. But yes, there had to be a twist in the tale.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1401 Post by Alan H » November 6th, 2015, 10:25 pm

Dave B wrote:I'm confused, does this mean that cheap off-patent drugs will be available or will not be available?

The sentence
A Conservative health minister has deliberately blocked a new law to provide cheap and effective drugs for the NHS by championing medicines whose patents have expired
is at least confusing. To me at least!

I think it says he has blocked a new law that would have prevented the use of off-patent drugs. I think. But yes, there had to be a twist in the tale.
The Tories blocked the Bill that would have allowed cheap off-patient drugs. Their claim is that 'there is another pathway' but have not said what that is. Of course, why they have chosen not to explain what it is, instead getting a stooge to filibuster, is bizarre to say the least.

Of course, if I was a conspiracy theorist, I might be tempted to link this with Saatchi's medical Innovation Bill and Chris Heaton-Harris's Access to Medical Treatment (Innovation) Bill and the determination to have these pushed through...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply