Productivity rose 2.1% when more cash spent on NHS under Labour
Only 0.1% when starved of cash under Tory and 1st term Labour govts.
Tribal Tory beliefs != Reality.
A new study by researchers at the Centre for Health Economics, University of York, reveals the productivity of the NHS in England increased by 3.2 per cent in the first year of the Coalition administration.
The news cycle is setting the stage for a mass privatisation of the NHS by the Conservative to replace it with an insurance-based system. Long been the Tory endgame.
I don't think the second thing is the same as the first. Talking about an issue increases its salience, which boosts the party that is more trusted on it. ...
Of course, Edmondo. My post are generally laced with an overdose of optimistic and partisan thinking.
There has been a change today though. Stafford and now the Keogh Report has given the Tories licence to criticise the NHS in public. And that is a big step forward.
It is nowhere near the "cleaning up the economic mess left by Labour" advantage that you point out but it is a move in that direction.
The problem with Lansley's reforms were that he had to fight against the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" interests. From Cameron himself (the clip of his "no top down reorganisations" promise so often posted by tim); from true supporters like the Nabavi of All Sussex ("a second term policy"); entrenched professional and producer interests; as well as, of course, an opposition with the wind of public trust in its sails.
What Stafford and Keogh has done is to establish beyond argument and doubt that the NHS is, at least in substantial part, "broken". Which means the public will now expect the current government to "fix it". Any move that the Coalition now takes can be justified as a response to Keogh.
So Hunt has been dealt a much better hand to play than Lansley ever was (though the Lansley reforms were much more about driving patient interests to the fore through commissioning change rather than quality management).
Now can Hunt play his cards sufficiently skillfully to gain the trust of the public? And do so in a couple of years? Probably not but he can certainly narrow the gap. Labour opposition is now neutered by independent assessment of failure. Not quite like Brown's economy, but not the rosy Utopia of Danny Boyle any more.
The important change today is that the Tories have been given a mandate to intervene, to change and to trumpet their activism.
No Tories or Coalition to blame in 2009 for filthy hospitals and above average death rates.
Just Andy cover-up Burnham.
'At the Basildon Trust, the hospital was given a 'good' rating - the second-best category - and scored 13 marks out of 14 for safety and cleanliness.
But weeks later an unannounced inspection revealed significantly higher than average death rates and dirty equipment. Officials found blood on curtains and chairs, catheter bags on floors, untrained nurses, and patients being treated on trolleys in the centre of the ward. The report said at least 70 people died unnecessarily because of the conditions there.'
Inept tory spinners spinning like mad for Hunt but the real question is whether the tories are going to fix the NHS trust problems or base the next election on an Oliver Nitwit style master strategy?
"I have commissioned Professor Nick Black at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Professor Lord Ara Darzi at Imperial College London to conduct a study into the relationship between ‘excess mortality rates’ and actual ‘avoidable deaths’. This will involve conducting retrospective case note reviews on a substantial random sample of inhospital deaths from trusts with lower than expected, as expected and higher than expected mortality rates."
So there seems to be no suggestion that there were no avoidable deaths. There will be much more to come on this. Be careful what you wish for red team.
I am perplexed about how the 13,000 number grew legs. (yes, I know Jeremy Chum spin blah) First sighting was in the Sunday Telegraph I think. Had they seen a draft of the report which did include that figure?
Did anyone catch Jeremy Hunt and then Andy Burnham's performances on Sky News today, what an illuminating contrast. Absolutely bizarre to see the almost pitying way Kaye Burley handled the interview with Burnham, and his lack of awareness of this as he ranted away about Conservatives in Government pre 97' and post 2010.
Labour can’t have it both ways. If they don’t want the NHS to become “a political football”, fine. But then Ed Miliband needs to stop wandering around pledging to turn the NHS into “David Cameron’s poll-tax”. Or they can continue to play route one with the NHS every day between now and polling day. But then they can’t whine when they find that same cold, heavy football flying back and smacking them in the face.
Or, to put it another way, they don't like it up 'em.
Today, Ed Miliband showed that he doesn't want to be Labour leader. He wants to be prime minister
But one thing is certain: today we did not see the real Ed Miliband. We saw a brave, decisive and politically astute Ed Miliband few people have set eyes on before.
Now is the moment for the real Ed Miliband to stay seated. This new guy has to stay on his feet all the way to 2015.
The news cycle is setting the stage for a mass privatisation of the NHS by the Conservative to replace it with an insurance-based system. Long been the Tory endgame.
Oh dear. Is the only choice in your world between fully socialist NHS 'pays and does' vs insurance? The obvious answer is for an NHS still free at the point of use but which is not itself a service provider but a commissioner of health services from a competitive market.
Privatisation means selling something truly into the private sector (British Airways, Britsh Gas, British Telecom, etc) as a commercial standalone company. We could privatise health but we will never do so. If tax money is used to fund and govern health services it is surely in everyone's best interest as a consumer of health services to purchase those services from the best provider. Monopolistic state entities are never the best providers.
Really. Why does the left care so much who actually runs a hospital or a surgery? If it's paid for and it's great then what does who owns the hospital matter? Is it because this will weaken public sector unions and the Labour party? I suspect that is the real motive. It's certainly not patient care outcomes or cost that drives the desperate opposition to common sense here.
Have to agree @antifrank, how can Labour now accuse the Government of playing political football with the NHS when Andy Burnham himself and the whole Labour party have been doing since the Coalition Government was formed? Who could forget 'three months to save the NHS' etc etc over the last three years? Dan Hodges hits this particular political football into the back of the net.
"Labour can’t have it both ways. If they don’t want the NHS to become “a political football”, fine. But then Ed Miliband needs to stop wandering around pledging to turn the NHS into “David Cameron’s poll-tax”. Or they can continue to play route one with the NHS every day between now and polling day. But then they can’t whine when they find that same cold, heavy football flying back and smacking them in the face.
The appropriate response from Labour today would have been to duck inside the Tories' punch. Serious mistakes were made on Labour’s watch, and they should have been acknowledged. If that meant some collateral damage too, Andy Burnham, so be it.
Had Labour done that then their accusations about Tory politicking would have carried more validity, and Jeremy Hunt’s fox would have been shot. As it is, Labour is now going to come under increasing pressure to finally take some responsibility, and a row Labour doesn’t want will continue to run."
Or, to put it another way, they don't like it up 'em.
What the tories have done is harsh and brutal. It's like identifying the opposition's top player and nobbling him ahead of the big fixture.
But its effective...
We'll have to wait for some polling to see if it's been effective. When the voters have a deeply-embedded prejudice like Labour being better on the NHS it's very hard work to shift it.
Or, to put it another way, they don't like it up 'em.
What the tories have done is harsh and brutal. It's like identifying the opposition's top player and nobbling him ahead of the big fixture.
But its effective...
We'll have to wait for some polling to see if it's been effective. When the voters have a deeply-embedded prejudice like Labour being better on the NHS it's very hard work to shift it.
What is the consensus view for the time between an event and it registering in the polls?
I think what's emerging is a realisation that Labour is better for the NHS - but not necessarily for the patients. That is potentially poisonous for Labour. The producer / consumer championing question is clearly a very fruitful one for Dave and Jeremy to push.
Lib Dem Andrew George accuses Jeremy Hunt of dragging #nhs into gutter #keogh
Strange but telling silence from Clegg and his inner circle so far.
Lest we forget the lib dems helped boot out Lansley's initial idiotic proposals once they realised how toxic the tories were making the issue. So what they do next could be interesting.
I'd guess 3 days to a week to sink in, but you have to look at the subsidiaries, probably over several polls. This may not even affect the lead, and if it does it'll be hard to tell because the headline numbers are all over the place right now.
What Stafford and Keogh has done is to establish beyond argument and doubt that the NHS is, at least in substantial part, "broken". Which means the public will now expect the current government to "fix it". Any move that the Coalition now takes can be justified as a response to Keogh.
It's a strategy that, in a narrow partisan sense, has a good chance of success. In terms of delivering a good health service at a reasonable cost for the country, well, I have my doubts.
I think most of the polls are underestimating UKIP because they can't decide what methodology to employ as regards the party, but that's just my hunch.
Trouble is if labour start disputing the numbers it looks pretty bad.
There wasn't 13,000 extra deaths on our watch guv'nor, it was only X,000.
Yes, we must let all the Tory whoppers stand just in case someone gets offended.
It's not offence, it's making them refute it with something that's also bad for them. That often works as a strategy, but in this case I think they can just pick apart the entire premise.
"Much as I dislike making partisan points, for the past hour I have sat here watching shrill Labour MPs brimming with faux indignation. Several of them fly into a phoney, self-righteous, head-shaking rage at any suggestion that there might be a problem with the NHS.
What I find so vile is that their reaction seems so concocted and bogus.
People died in squalor. Older, often vulnerable, folk were left to die in their own filth. Whistleblowers took risks to expose serial malpractice.
Yet on the benches opposite they seem to think it is all about them. How revolting.
When individuals complained in Mid Staffs, they found that the NHS management closed ranks. For year, anyone who pointed out failings in our health service would be accused of attacking those who work for our NHS. Not only shouted down, their motives and integrity would be questioned.
It is precisely because we have made the NHS immune to any criticism that we have landed in this sorry mess. Today I hope that started to change"
And its not just the NHS, it was happening across the board in areas such as the police and with our teaching establishment. Incredible to note how the pendulum has swung away from political fear of any criticism of teachers, nurses & policing by the current Government in this Parliament? And this development in the political and media narrative is going to make it far harder for the current Labour Opposition to fall back on the old attack lines when it comes to public sector workers of all stripes at the next GE. That Labour's whole strategy over the last three years has centred around using these people are their poster girls and boys for their attacks on the Government's austerity policies shows just what a hole they have dug themselves.
Rudd cutting toxic green taxes: Having tidily dispatched his nemesis Julia Gillard in a labor party leadership struggle last month, Kevin Rudd is setting his sights on winning the next Australian elections scheduled for September 14. Step one: slash a politically toxic carbon tax, and make up for the lost revenue by cutting several green programs.
Spain cuts green energy losses: Spain is the latest European country to regret its foray into green energy production. On Friday the Spanish government announced some contentious reforms to its regime of green energy subsidies, which were among the most generous in Europe.
Those subsidies (in the form of guaranteed above-market rates for producers) have been wildly successful at encouraging solar and wind farm construction. They have utterly failed, though, to help build profitable industries. Now the Spanish central government is dealing with a residual tariff deficit of €4.5 billion for this year alone. That’s the difference between the amount Spanish consumers pay for electricity and the cost of producing it.
"What's gone wrong? It can't be the money. We have pumped more money into the NHS than ever before. The problem, it seems, is management. Far from being the envy of the world, parts of the NHS, according to Keogh, are rather badly run.
"When individuals complained in Mid Staffs, they found that the NHS management closed ranks. For year, anyone who pointed out failings in our health service would be accused of attacking those who work for our NHS. Not only shouted down, their motives and integrity would be questioned.
It is precisely because we have made the NHS immune to any criticism that we have landed in this sorry mess. Today I hope that started to change."
I think what's emerging is a realisation that Labour is better for the NHS - but not necessarily for the patients. That is potentially poisonous for Labour. The producer / consumer championing question is clearly a very fruitful one for Dave and Jeremy to push.
There is not just one NHS. There are managers and then there are clinicians, for starters.
One of the mistakes I felt the Tories made over Stafford is they went after the clinicians - who had been complaining to managers about staffing levels, and knew about the problems they were facing - instead of concentrating their fire on the managers, top-down targets, etc.
Twitter Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 18m @IsabelHardman If 14 worst trusts were as good as average trust there would have been 13,000 fewer deaths, it is an actuarial calculation.
Christopher Hope @christopherhope 2m 1/2 Hey @Number10press Here are the figures showing the 4,000 fall in qualified nurses, midwives and health vistors between 2010 and 2012
Christopher Hope @christopherhope 2m 1/2 Hey @Number10press Here are the figures showing the 4,000 fall in qualified nurses, midwives and health vistors between 2010 and 2012
This is what they are scared of, the Keogh report links mortality to understaffing, but numbers have fallen under this govt.
Tim, do remember when you used to complain about one of the POTY's constantly posting tweets?
Janan Ganesh @JananGanesh 6m Mortifying amount of shrill guff being talked by all sides today - about NHS, Jeremy Hunt, politicisation. Westminster needs a summer break
'This is what they are scared of, the Keogh report links mortality to understaffing'
'The scandal at Stafford Hospital occurred after massive staff cutbacks, which meant that on one floor of the hospital, there were just two qualified nurses to care for patients at night.'
So Labour now taking full responsibility for the Stafford hospital deaths?
One of the mistakes I felt the Tories made over Stafford is they went after the clinicians - who had been complaining to managers about staffing levels, and knew about the problems they were facing - instead of concentrating their fire on the managers, top-down targets, etc.
Correct.
Stafford Hospital report: At a glance
More than a year after it finishing sitting, the final report of the public inquiry into the Stafford Hospital scandal has been published.
It is long. It runs to three volumes and contains nearly 1,800 pages. The executive summary alone is more than 100 pages long.
And there are a total of 290 recommendations. But what does it actually have to say? The hospital's board should take ultimate responsibility
The report is clear - fault lies with the board at the time.
It was the board which took the decision to pursue a cost-cutting drive to achieve foundation trust status and it was the board which refused to listen to the complaints of patients and - at times - staff.
The report said it "failed to appreciate the enormity of what was happening and reacted too slowly, if at all".
But it does not stop there
Responsibility, the inquiry said, goes right through the health service.
GPs and local MPs did not do enough to help patients who came to them.
The local primary care trust, which oversaw the hospital at the time, failed to put in place a system which would pick up problems.
Meanwhile, there was a lack of clarity about the role of the regional health authority in monitoring quality and when concerns were brought to its attention the authority was too ready to put its faith in the hospital's management. The government has a lot to learn too
The Department of Health was criticised for being too remote and not always putting patients first, prioritising policies over patient considerations.
It also warned that while there was not a culture within the department that could be properly described as bullying, there was evidence that "well-intentioned decisions and directives have either been interpreted further down the hierarchy as bullying, or resulted in them being applied locally in an oppressive manner".
I think what's emerging is a realisation that Labour is better for the NHS - but not necessarily for the patients. That is potentially poisonous for Labour. The producer / consumer championing question is clearly a very fruitful one for Dave and Jeremy to push.
There is not just one NHS. There are managers and then there are clinicians, for starters.
One of the mistakes I felt the Tories made over Stafford is they went after the clinicians - who had been complaining to managers about staffing levels, and knew about the problems they were facing - instead of concentrating their fire on the managers, top-down targets, etc.
Yup, they want to make it primarily about the nomenklatura - the nepotistic caste that has built up around administering the welfare state and has done very well out of it ta very much.
FPT. Hello Jack, I do not believe I have the knowledge to confirm your position , but it would not be impossible and given the way labour are copies of the Tories nowadays , there is a good chance. Would be very nice but only likely if a NO vote in referendum which I believe will not be the case and so would expect a very strange vote in 2015 as the country prepares for independence.
Hey ho malcolmg.
Unlike you to be so coy but I understand.
Smiles ....
Two respected posters offering different spellings of 'hey/heigh ho'!
But if it leads to key improvements in the delivery of care in the NHS, then the general public is the winner here and not the politicians. Didn't the Conservatives float the idea of trying to remove the NHS from such direct Government control, and therefore as a key political football before the last GE? That definitely might be the ultimate goal here?
'This is what they are scared of, the Keogh report links mortality to understaffing'
'The scandal at Stafford Hospital occurred after massive staff cutbacks, which meant that on one floor of the hospital, there were just two qualified nurses to care for patients at night.'
So Labour now taking full responsibility for the Stafford hospital deaths?
Tim's having a real bad day - he's resorted to random posts and personal attacks on Hunt's expenses, Cameron's family, all the 'dim' posters who don't agree with him - I've only been on for short bursts between living but he's never let up all day long just as I predicted at the start of the day. It's hilarious and tragic in equal proportions., the former because he's failed and the latter because it's all been to defend Andy Burnham. And now back to life...
wrt the "no figure in the "entire" Keogh report" tweet, have they also read the 14 other, specific, reports? These do have a figures, in particular, the key ratios.
I'm not saying the number is 13, 000 but to say (pretend!) that there is nothing pointing to a number (even if it requires some calculation) is pretty low.
As a big supporter of the NHS it's very sad for me to see it being dragged through the mud like it is today, but only by being open and transparent about what's gone on can we (hopefully) make progress on the way some parts of the NHS treat their patients.
All of the political heat really takes away from the real story of this, which is the needless death's of patients who the NHS should have been caring for.
As a big supporter of the NHS it's very sad for me to see it being dragged through the mud like it is today, but only by being open and transparent about what's gone on can we (hopefully) make progress on the way some parts of the NHS treat their patients.
All of the political heat really takes away from the real story of this, which is the needless death's of patients who the NHS should have been caring for.
@frasernelson Thought: if 14 worst hospitals had 14,000 'excess' deaths, doesn't that imply that 14 best hospitals will have saved 14,000 (or so) lives?
Yes indeed it does. HSMRs are an average.
If worst Trusts have x number of excess deaths, the best ones must have have x number of "saved lives".
This is what makes HSMRs ineffective in stating the number of "unnecessary" deaths.
There is no external benchmark which is why the NHS ditched them. The newer SHMIs are a better "measure".
Labour are the very last Party who should whinge about politicisng the NHS. They've done nothing but that for years and years and us Conservatives have had to endure the most outrageous asertions about our governance of the NHS and people dying for a long long time. MODERATED. Whilst I am a strong supporter of an NHS maybe, just maybe we can all stop being so sentimental about it, stop treating any criticism of the NHS and its staff as a sort of War Crime and recognise that there is something seriously wrong which needs putting right..
Incidentally, while I don't expect this has done Andy Burnham's profile much good, I doubt it's done the Conservatives any good at all.
But if it leads to key improvements in the delivery of care in the NHS, then the general public is the winner here and not the politicians. Didn't the Conservatives float the idea of trying to remove the NHS from such direct Government control, and therefore as a key political football before the last GE? That definitely might be the ultimate goal here?
The Tories are already refusing to accept Keoghs findings on staffing levels. As for removing from govt control, you can't have it both ways, Hunt is putting hospitals into special measures, you think that's not govt control?
Well I can't quite recall Burnham emptying bed pans or sawing off limbs at Stafford or anywhere else. Unless you know better ??
As a big supporter of the NHS it's very sad for me to see it being dragged through the mud like it is today, but only by being open and transparent about what's gone on can we (hopefully) make progress on the way some parts of the NHS treat their patients.
All of the political heat really takes away from the real story of this, which is the needless death's of patients who the NHS should have been caring for.
A grim day.
I've always had good treatment from the NHS (as I've posted on here before) but I've only ever experianced the NHS as a baby, child, teenager, young man and now as some approaching (but hopefully not quite there) middle age.
If I was 30 years older and involved with the NHS I would probably be a lot more fearful about what standard of "care" awaits me....
Incidentally, while I don't expect this has done Andy Burnham's profile much good, I doubt it's done the Conservatives any good at all.
But if it leads to key improvements in the delivery of care in the NHS, then the general public is the winner here and not the politicians. Didn't the Conservatives float the idea of trying to remove the NHS from such direct Government control, and therefore as a key political football before the last GE? That definitely might be the ultimate goal here?
The Tories are already refusing to accept Keoghs findings on staffing levels.
But are the lib dems? What will Clegg do and does anyone know?
This could be a repeat of the Lansley shambles if the lib dems decide to accept the Keogh Report's recommendations and it gets put to a vote.
Yes, we must let all the Tory whoppers stand just in case someone gets offended.
Yes, just like the 'possibly one' death at Stafford that you used to peddle. Just as insidious and nasty as the other claims.
Some points that others may agree with (or not)
HSMR is a statistic that is of limited use, and of no use to work out numbers of excess deaths (or survivals for that matter). It is an indicator or problems, not proof.
In the case of Stafford, poor HSMR was certainly coincident with tragically poor levels of care.
The level of correlation between HSMR and poor care is currently unknown, and is probably worthy of further investigation.
Some hospitals that have made strides to improve patient care have seen their HSMR improve.
The reported hideous care levels at Stafford and Morecombe Bay are such that it is very unlikely that patients did not suffer or die unnecessarily. Hopefully the police investigations may help clear this up for some of the families, one way or the other.
Just because HSMR cannot reliably be used to calculate excess deaths, that does not mean that everything is hunky-dory at an establishment that gets a low score.
HSMR and other stats were fiddled by some trusts in order to get the results they wanted. This was not picked up by the parties that should have been policing the system.
Poor care was known about in many hospitals (e.g. Stafford), although many complaints were essentially sent to /dev/null and not properly investigated.
Paying off whistleblowers and others in the NHS (indeed any public body) is abhorrent, and not for the public good. It has to be stopped, and the existing deals investigated. The same is true of other methods allegedly used to stop people talking.
The CQC was set up and did not do its job, whether by design rather than incompetence.
Patients have to be first and foremost in the NHS, not the staff. In many trusts this has not been the case.
The campaigns against people whose relatives died at Stafford and elsewhere are fairly sick.
Summing up: statistics are all well and good. But the correct stats have to be collected, and they have to be used wisely. If a stat shows abnormalities in either direction, it should be investigated without fear of where the investigation may end up.
A simple question, why cant labour or the left leaning posters on here simply admit that although more money was spent on the NHS during 1997-2010 patient outcomes were sometimes appalling, some hospitals were run for the staff and not the patients and some patients died unnecessarily Why is that so hard to admit, why all this dont blame us we are fantastic we love the NHS, its all the tories fault, nothing to do with us and how dare the nasty tories say that we were in government while some of these failings happened. Its just nonsense. How does this attitude help patients in the future.
So Labour really didn't get anything wrong, no one died unnecessarily, PB Tories are all morons and everything was fine until Evil Tories in HMG ruined Labour's golden legacy that is the NHS as described across the media today. Oh and the Blue Meanies have been very unfair to Andy Burnham and are playing politics with the NHS.
Glad we have that sorted. Talk about epic complacency from Labourites. Do carry on, the rest of us have noticed.
As a big supporter of the NHS it's very sad for me to see it being dragged through the mud like it is today, but only by being open and transparent about what's gone on can we (hopefully) make progress on the way some parts of the NHS treat their patients.
All of the political heat really takes away from the real story of this, which is the needless death's of patients who the NHS should have been caring for.
A grim day.
If I was 30 years older and involved with the NHS I would probably be a lot more fearful about what standard of "care" awaits me....
Nothing to drink, and a pillow over the face if you complained about bring thirsty.
A simple question, why cant labour or the left leaning posters on here simply admit that although more money was spent on the NHS during 1997-2010 patient outcomes were sometimes appalling, some hospitals were run for the staff and not the patients and some patients died unnecessarily Why is that so hard to admit, why all this dont blame us we are fantastic we love the NHS, its all the tories fault, nothing to do with us and how dare the nasty tories say that we were in government while some of these failings happened. Its just nonsense. How does this attitude help patients in the future.
They love the NHS - just not so much the patients.
If it would help enhance site harmony I could regale you all with an in-depth explanation of why fixed gear ratios for the entire 2014 season is utterly thrilling.
As a big supporter of the NHS it's very sad for me to see it being dragged through the mud like it is today, but only by being open and transparent about what's gone on can we (hopefully) make progress on the way some parts of the NHS treat their patients.
All of the political heat really takes away from the real story of this, which is the needless death's of patients who the NHS should have been caring for.
A grim day.
If I was 30 years older and involved with the NHS I would probably be a lot more fearful about what standard of "care" awaits me....
Nothing to drink, and a pillow over the face if you complained about bring thirsty.
On the other hand I know someone in their 80's who developed cancer of the base of the tongue and all the stops were pulled out for her - Surgery, radiation, chemo - She is doing well and three years in remission - So as always for every horror story you can find a good experience and the reverse is true as well, of course.
Comments
york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2013/research/nhs-productivity/
extraordinary post of yours, Ben.
I don't think the second thing is the same as the first. Talking about an issue increases its salience, which boosts the party that is more trusted on it. ...
Of course, Edmondo. My post are generally laced with an overdose of optimistic and partisan thinking.
There has been a change today though. Stafford and now the Keogh Report has given the Tories licence to criticise the NHS in public. And that is a big step forward.
It is nowhere near the "cleaning up the economic mess left by Labour" advantage that you point out but it is a move in that direction.
The problem with Lansley's reforms were that he had to fight against the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" interests. From Cameron himself (the clip of his "no top down reorganisations" promise so often posted by tim); from true supporters like the Nabavi of All Sussex ("a second term policy"); entrenched professional and producer interests; as well as, of course, an opposition with the wind of public trust in its sails.
What Stafford and Keogh has done is to establish beyond argument and doubt that the NHS is, at least in substantial part, "broken". Which means the public will now expect the current government to "fix it". Any move that the Coalition now takes can be justified as a response to Keogh.
So Hunt has been dealt a much better hand to play than Lansley ever was (though the Lansley reforms were much more about driving patient interests to the fore through commissioning change rather than quality management).
Now can Hunt play his cards sufficiently skillfully to gain the trust of the public? And do so in a couple of years? Probably not but he can certainly narrow the gap. Labour opposition is now neutered by independent assessment of failure. Not quite like Brown's economy, but not the rosy Utopia of Danny Boyle any more.
The important change today is that the Tories have been given a mandate to intervene, to change and to trumpet their activism.
That in itself is a big change.
Just Andy cover-up Burnham.
'At the Basildon Trust, the hospital was given a 'good' rating - the second-best category - and scored 13 marks out of 14 for safety and cleanliness.
But weeks later an unannounced inspection revealed significantly higher than average death rates and dirty equipment. Officials found blood on curtains and chairs, catheter bags on floors, untrained nurses, and patients being treated on trolleys in the centre of the ward.
The report said at least 70 people died unnecessarily because of the conditions there.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233532/NHS-feud-hothead-Labour-baroness-accused-sending-colleagues-abusive-emails.html#ixzz2ZDekJiVv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
If they seriously think the NHS is finished let them put that to the public and see how many votes it gets them.
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Professor Lord
Ara Darzi at Imperial College London to conduct a study into
the relationship between ‘excess mortality rates’ and actual
‘avoidable deaths’. This will involve conducting retrospective
case note reviews on a substantial random sample of inhospital deaths from trusts with lower than expected, as
expected and higher than expected mortality rates."
So there seems to be no suggestion that there were no avoidable deaths. There will be much more to come on this. Be careful what you wish for red team.
I am perplexed about how the 13,000 number grew legs. (yes, I know Jeremy Chum spin blah) First sighting was in the Sunday Telegraph I think. Had they seen a draft of the report which did include that figure?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100226742/jeremy-hunt-might-have-descended-to-the-gutter-over-the-nhs-but-hes-taken-labour-with-him/
Never argue with an idiot because he'll drag you down to his level then beat you with experience.
You stated that it had risen "only 0.1%" under the Tories.
You are out of date. Your figures are for 1995 - 2010.
You do remember what happened in 2010 don't you?
Mr Hunt sought to blame the last Labour Government for failing to expose flaws in the NHS.
But Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham dismissed the charge, and accused Mr Hunt of "playing politics with people's lives".
Note Hunt only "sought to" blame, but Burnham is given the last word.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23315869
They'll have to get real and wear this one. It's that or campaign in 2015 on a holocaust denial platform.
tim's "don't look at that look at this" schtick getting old already and there are 2 years to go.
who cares about hunt's expenses, thing is he didn't let 13000 people die too soon.
Labour can’t have it both ways. If they don’t want the NHS to become “a political football”, fine. But then Ed Miliband needs to stop wandering around pledging to turn the NHS into “David Cameron’s poll-tax”. Or they can continue to play route one with the NHS every day between now and polling day. But then they can’t whine when they find that same cold, heavy football flying back and smacking them in the face.
Or, to put it another way, they don't like it up 'em.
Funding in 2010 was still "Hi" thanks to Labour (the Tories don't dare be seen to cut the NHS).
So the point stands. More resources in, better productivity.
You know the inept tory spinners are clutching at straws when they start cheering on a joke like Dan Hodges.
Do you still hope that she will become a better economist than her father?
I could still put in a word with Cheltenham Ladies College if she is struggling.
IN FUTURE
PLEASE PROVIDE 100% LINKS FOR ANY ACCUSATIONS YOU MAKE ABOUT JEREMY HUNT
The news cycle is setting the stage for a mass privatisation of the NHS by the Conservative to replace it with an insurance-based system. Long been the Tory endgame.
Oh dear. Is the only choice in your world between fully socialist NHS 'pays and does' vs insurance? The obvious answer is for an NHS still free at the point of use but which is not itself a service provider but a commissioner of health services from a competitive market.
Privatisation means selling something truly into the private sector (British Airways, Britsh Gas, British Telecom, etc) as a commercial standalone company. We could privatise health but we will never do so. If tax money is used to fund and govern health services it is surely in everyone's best interest as a consumer of health services to purchase those services from the best provider. Monopolistic state entities are never the best providers.
Really. Why does the left care so much who actually runs a hospital or a surgery? If it's paid for and it's great then what does who owns the hospital matter? Is it because this will weaken public sector unions and the Labour party? I suspect that is the real motive. It's certainly not patient care outcomes or cost that drives the desperate opposition to common sense here.
"Labour can’t have it both ways. If they don’t want the NHS to become “a political football”, fine. But then Ed Miliband needs to stop wandering around pledging to turn the NHS into “David Cameron’s poll-tax”. Or they can continue to play route one with the NHS every day between now and polling day. But then they can’t whine when they find that same cold, heavy football flying back and smacking them in the face.
The appropriate response from Labour today would have been to duck inside the Tories' punch. Serious mistakes were made on Labour’s watch, and they should have been acknowledged. If that meant some collateral damage too, Andy Burnham, so be it.
Had Labour done that then their accusations about Tory politicking would have carried more validity, and Jeremy Hunt’s fox would have been shot. As it is, Labour is now going to come under increasing pressure to finally take some responsibility, and a row Labour doesn’t want will continue to run."
total non sequitur. More resources doesn't inevitably mean better productivity.
One man producing 100 is more productive than two men producing 150 (I'm keeping it simple here, Ben).
Are you wilfully misunderstanding the report?
Productivity increased 3.2% in the first year of the coalition. It has nothing to do with resources.
So that's why Labour agreed to pay GP's more, for fewer hours worked.
Blinding.
What the tories have done is harsh and brutal. It's like identifying the opposition's top player and nobbling him ahead of the big fixture.
But its effective...
: )
Soon to be joined by number 2 any day now.
I hope they're both miles more numerate than me!
It must be Charterhouse then.
Keep us informed. Far more important than NHS productivity statistics.
Good luck with delivery of No 2
@IsabelHardman
OK. I've read the whole Keogh report. http://specc.ie/15ClyUo 13,000 deaths is not in there. Where did it come from @Toryhealth?
True but I was thinking more of the NHS as labour's top 'vote for us' issue.
» show previous quotes
Sigh.
Funding in 2010 was still "Hi" thanks to Labour (the Tories don't dare be seen to cut the NHS).
So the point stands. More resources in, better productivity.'
So why have Labour cut the NHS budget in Wales by 8% ?
2 or 3 days or a week to 10 days?
Lest we forget the lib dems helped boot out Lansley's initial idiotic proposals once they realised how toxic the tories were making the issue. So what they do next could be interesting.
There wasn't 13,000 extra deaths on our watch guv'nor, it was only X,000.
Seems to have been edited out of their updated frontpage article when they realised how it would come across to the statistically illiterate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23315869
It's a strategy that, in a narrow partisan sense, has a good chance of success. In terms of delivering a good health service at a reasonable cost for the country, well, I have my doubts.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100226341/people-died-in-squalor-in-nhs-hospitals-yet-labour-mps-brimming-with-phoney-rage-think-this-is-all-about-them/
Just when the online polls on Sunday seemed to show them pulling away a little - or at least having weathered the Union funding storm.
And the precipitous UKIP fall correlating with Tory rise. Worrying for Ed.
"Much as I dislike making partisan points, for the past hour I have sat here watching shrill Labour MPs brimming with faux indignation. Several of them fly into a phoney, self-righteous, head-shaking rage at any suggestion that there might be a problem with the NHS.
What I find so vile is that their reaction seems so concocted and bogus.
People died in squalor. Older, often vulnerable, folk were left to die in their own filth. Whistleblowers took risks to expose serial malpractice.
Yet on the benches opposite they seem to think it is all about them. How revolting.
When individuals complained in Mid Staffs, they found that the NHS management closed ranks. For year, anyone who pointed out failings in our health service would be accused of attacking those who work for our NHS. Not only shouted down, their motives and integrity would be questioned.
It is precisely because we have made the NHS immune to any criticism that we have landed in this sorry mess. Today I hope that started to change"
And its not just the NHS, it was happening across the board in areas such as the police and with our teaching establishment. Incredible to note how the pendulum has swung away from political fear of any criticism of teachers, nurses & policing by the current Government in this Parliament? And this development in the political and media narrative is going to make it far harder for the current Labour Opposition to fall back on the old attack lines when it comes to public sector workers of all stripes at the next GE. That Labour's whole strategy over the last three years has centred around using these people are their poster girls and boys for their attacks on the Government's austerity policies shows just what a hole they have dug themselves.
Having tidily dispatched his nemesis Julia Gillard in a labor party leadership struggle last month, Kevin Rudd is setting his sights on winning the next Australian elections scheduled for September 14. Step one: slash a politically toxic carbon tax, and make up for the lost revenue by cutting several green programs.
Spain cuts green energy losses:
Spain is the latest European country to regret its foray into green energy production. On Friday the Spanish government announced some contentious reforms to its regime of green energy subsidies, which were among the most generous in Europe.
Those subsidies (in the form of guaranteed above-market rates for producers) have been wildly successful at encouraging solar and wind farm construction. They have utterly failed, though, to help build profitable industries. Now the Spanish central government is dealing with a residual tariff deficit of €4.5 billion for this year alone. That’s the difference between the amount Spanish consumers pay for electricity and the cost of producing it.
Remind me what Ed Davey is up to?
"What's gone wrong? It can't be the money. We have pumped more money into the NHS than ever before. The problem, it seems, is management. Far from being the envy of the world, parts of the NHS, according to Keogh, are rather badly run.
"When individuals complained in Mid Staffs, they found that the NHS management closed ranks. For year, anyone who pointed out failings in our health service would be accused of attacking those who work for our NHS. Not only shouted down, their motives and integrity would be questioned.
It is precisely because we have made the NHS immune to any criticism that we have landed in this sorry mess. Today I hope that started to change."
Tim seems very, very desperate this afternoon.
One of the mistakes I felt the Tories made over Stafford is they went after the clinicians - who had been complaining to managers about staffing levels, and knew about the problems they were facing - instead of concentrating their fire on the managers, top-down targets, etc.
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 18m
@IsabelHardman If 14 worst trusts were as good as average trust there would have been 13,000 fewer deaths, it is an actuarial calculation.
Isabel Hardman @IsabelHardman 17m
@GuidoFawkes that's very helpful, thank you!
Janan Ganesh @JananGanesh 6m
Mortifying amount of shrill guff being talked by all sides today - about NHS, Jeremy Hunt, politicisation. Westminster needs a summer break
What was the number of unnecessary deaths then ben????
(hint: If you say it was zero the electorate won't believe you).
18th July: South Ribble
20th July: Battersea
20th July: Brighton Pavilion
20th July: Erewash
21st July: Croydon Central
21st July: Gravesham
25th July: Morecambe & Lunesdale
26th July: Burnley
26th July: Lancaster & Fleetwood
26th July: Norfolk South
26th July: Thanet South
27th July: Amber Valley
27th July: Blackpool North
27th July: Cambridgeshire SE
27th July: Chelmsford
27th July: Leeds NW
27th July: Rochford & Southend East
28th July: Forest of Dean
28th July: Norfolk North
28th July: Sittingbourne & Sheppey
3rd August: Broxtowe
10th August: Huntingdon
19th August: Edinburgh West
1st September: Dumfriesshire
1st September: Finchley & Golders Green
1st September: Rossendale & Darwen
2nd September: Dunbartonshire East
5th September: Chippenham
7th September: Argyll & Bute
7th September: Carmarthen West
7th September: St Ives
8th September: Elmet & Rothwell
8th September: Pudsey
15th September: Pendle
'This is what they are scared of, the Keogh report links mortality to understaffing'
'The scandal at Stafford Hospital occurred after massive staff cutbacks, which meant that on one floor of the hospital, there were just two qualified nurses to care for patients at night.'
So Labour now taking full responsibility for the Stafford hospital deaths?
It's Hey ho too !!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8231771.stm
Labour on the NHS - Blub. Blub. That's our football, give it back.
I'm not saying the number is 13, 000 but to say (pretend!) that there is nothing pointing to a number (even if it requires some calculation) is pretty low.
"Mortifying amount of shrill guff " indeed…
Where's your sense of adventure man ?!?
All of the political heat really takes away from the real story of this, which is the needless death's of patients who the NHS should have been caring for.
A grim day.
tim doesn't 'milk', Polish immigrant farmworkers do the job for him.
@frasernelson
Thought: if 14 worst hospitals had 14,000 'excess' deaths, doesn't that imply that 14 best hospitals will have saved 14,000 (or so) lives?
Yes indeed it does. HSMRs are an average.
If worst Trusts have x number of excess deaths, the best ones must have have x number of "saved lives".
This is what makes HSMRs ineffective in stating the number of "unnecessary" deaths.
There is no external benchmark which is why the NHS ditched them. The newer SHMIs are a better "measure".
' but he's never let up all day long just as I predicted at the start of the day. It's hilarious and tragic in equal proportions.'
Hilarious, not even a comfort break,I hope Labour's regional office is at least paying him the living wage.
This isn't important; I just know about it because my dad was there. He was surprised that Straw was only about 5'9", thought he'd have been taller..
Got to be some good short straw puns there
If I was 30 years older and involved with the NHS I would probably be a lot more fearful about what standard of "care" awaits me....
This could be a repeat of the Lansley shambles if the lib dems decide to accept the Keogh Report's recommendations and it gets put to a vote.
bulletproof Link please to "Burnham was aware"
This is to protect the site owner.
Some points that others may agree with (or not)
- HSMR is a statistic that is of limited use, and of no use to work out numbers of excess deaths (or survivals for that matter). It is an indicator or problems, not proof.
- In the case of Stafford, poor HSMR was certainly coincident with tragically poor levels of care.
- The level of correlation between HSMR and poor care is currently unknown, and is probably worthy of further investigation.
- Some hospitals that have made strides to improve patient care have seen their HSMR improve.
- The reported hideous care levels at Stafford and Morecombe Bay are such that it is very unlikely that patients did not suffer or die unnecessarily. Hopefully the police investigations may help clear this up for some of the families, one way or the other.
- Just because HSMR cannot reliably be used to calculate excess deaths, that does not mean that everything is hunky-dory at an establishment that gets a low score.
- HSMR and other stats were fiddled by some trusts in order to get the results they wanted. This was not picked up by the parties that should have been policing the system.
- Poor care was known about in many hospitals (e.g. Stafford), although many complaints were essentially sent to /dev/null and not properly investigated.
- Paying off whistleblowers and others in the NHS (indeed any public body) is abhorrent, and not for the public good. It has to be stopped, and the existing deals investigated. The same is true of other methods allegedly used to stop people talking.
- The CQC was set up and did not do its job, whether by design rather than incompetence.
- Patients have to be first and foremost in the NHS, not the staff. In many trusts this has not been the case.
- The campaigns against people whose relatives died at Stafford and elsewhere are fairly sick.
Summing up: statistics are all well and good. But the correct stats have to be collected, and they have to be used wisely. If a stat shows abnormalities in either direction, it should be investigated without fear of where the investigation may end up.(edit: CQC != QCQ)
Glad we have that sorted. Talk about epic complacency from Labourites. Do carry on, the rest of us have noticed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-5zEb1oS9A
This is a comment on Stafford Hospitals HSMR after the data was corrected (and audited).
I'm sorry it undermines a key plank of your deep loathing of the NHS, but there you are.
[After I've had tea, that is].
Worth listening to for his views on staffing levels.
Might prove disappointing for some.