logo
£2.2bn of ‘wasteful' NHS spending to be diverted to working classes

£2.2bn of ‘wasteful' NHS spending to be diverted to working classes

Wes Streeting will use a speech in Blackpool on Wednesday to set out how poorer communities will benefit from more medicines and equipment – and a bigger share of GP funding – under reforms in the upcoming NHS 10-year plan.
The Department of Health said NHS leaders have spent recent months driving cuts to NHS spending, such as on 'back office' functions and agency staff, while reducing forecast deficits by health trusts.
Around £2.2 billion previously set aside to plug financial holes will now be spent on staff, medicines, new technology and equipment in rural communities, coastal towns and working-class regions, according to the Department.
Mr Streeting will say: 'The truth is, those in greatest need often receive the worst quality healthcare.
'It flies in the face of the values the NHS was founded on. The circumstances of your birth shouldn't determine your worth.
'A core ambition of our 10-year plan will be to restore the promise of the NHS, to provide first-class healthcare for everyone in our country and end the postcode lottery.
'Last year, we sent crack teams of top clinicians to hospitals in parts of the country with the highest waiting lists and levels of economic inactivity.
'It has seen waiting lists in those areas falling twice as fast as the rest of the country, helping get sick Brits back to health and back to work.
'Thanks to the reforms we've made to bear down on wasteful spending, we can now invest the savings in working-class communities that need it most.
'Where towns have the greatest health needs and the fewest GPs, we will prioritise investment to rebuild your NHS and rebuild the health of your community.'
According to the Department of Health, GP surgeries that serve working-class areas receive, on average, 10% less funding per patient than practices in more affluent areas.
Royal College of GPs data suggests practices in some of England's poorest areas have around 300 more patients per GP than the most affluent, it said.
The Government now plans to review GP funding and the GP contract so working-class areas receive their 'fair share' of resources.
The Department of Health pointed to 'years of neglect' in poorer communities, which it said often have the fewest GPs, the worst performing services and the longest waits.
NHSE chief executive Jim Mackey is behind the drive to cut planned deficits.
This year, deficit support funding will not go to systems that fail to meet their agreed financial plans and is being phased out entirely from 2026/27.
Any struggling NHS trusts will now be required to set out activity and costs in a transparent way.
Dr Amanda Doyle, NHS England national director for primary care, said: 'It is essential that GP practices serving our most deprived communities, where health challenges are often greatest, receive a fair share of resources that reflect their need.'
Professor Kamila Hawthorne, chairwoman of the Royal College of GPs (RCGP), said: 'A patient's postcode and where they live should not determine the level of NHS care they receive, so a review of the funding formula for general practice – which currently does not account for health inequalities – is a good thing, something the college has campaigned for and is long overdue.
'Whilst GPs and our teams across the country are working under intense workload and workforce pressures, college research has shown that GPs in deprived areas are responsible for almost 2,500 patients per head on average, whilst those practising in more affluent areas tend to have patient lists of around 2,100.
'It can't be right that people in deprived communities – who often have more complex health needs and would likely benefit from health interventions most – are less likely to receive it, because their GPs' time is spread even more thinly.
'The RCGP has called for a review of all general practice funding streams so that more spending is channelled to areas of greatest need, so it's good to see the Government is listening.
'It's now vital that this review, announced today, is conducted in close collaboration with the British Medical Association as part of their negotiations for an improved contract, and an overall uplift to funding for delivering patient care in general practice.'
She said the RCGP had 'heard rumours that the transfer of funding from secondary to primary care is set to be delayed until 2035 – something that would totally undermine the Government's aspirations to shift more care into the community and 'bring back the family doctor''.
NHS Providers chief executive Daniel Elkeles said NHS trusts were 'playing a key role in generating the savings that will help underpin this commitment'.
He said new funding approaches 'will need to reflect the ongoing financial and operational pressures trusts face as they work to ensure the quality and safety of care'.
Mr Elkeles added: 'Our recent survey highlighted trust leaders' concerns over the impact of ongoing financial pressures.
'While the NHS must and will play its part in addressing health inequalities, it's important to recognise that the causes of ill health lie predominantly in wider societal issues including education, housing and transport.
'Therefore it's vital that we see a concerted and co-ordinated push across national and local government to deliver better health for all.'
The Health Service Journal reported that, under the 10-year plan, patients may also be able to have a say on whether hospitals should get the full payment for their treatment.
It said 'patient power payments' are expected to be trialled in a handful of areas.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Poorest parts of England to get £2.2bn more for NHS to cut care inequalities
Poorest parts of England to get £2.2bn more for NHS to cut care inequalities

The Guardian

time40 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Poorest parts of England to get £2.2bn more for NHS to cut care inequalities

England's poorest areas will get billions in extra health funding under new government plans to tackle stark inequalities in access to care and health outcomes. NHS services in deprived and coastal places will receive a £2.2bn boost this year to pay for more staff and equipment to help them close the wide gap in resources between them and well-off areas. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, will announce the move on Wednesday and hail it as a significant step towards ensuring that all patients get the same standard of care wherever they live. In a speech in Blackpool, he will decry that areas with the highest levels of illness and need for care often have low numbers of GPs, the longest waits for treatment and the poorest performing NHS services, a longstanding phenomenon known as 'the inverse care law'. He will portray the £2.2bn extra this year as a downpayment on a major redistribution of NHS funding, which is intended to improve the NHS in deprived areas. 'The truth is, those in greatest need often receive the worst quality healthcare. 'It flies in the face of the values the NHS was founded on. The circumstances of your birth shouldn't determine your worth,' he is expected to say. The £2.2bn is money that was due to be handed to England's 215 health trusts for 'deficit reduction' – to cover budget overspends – but has been freed up because Sir Jim Mackey, NHS England's chief executive, has told them to balance their books. Streeting has ordered a review of the Carr-Hill formula, which is used to decide the allocation of GP funding. The review, involving the advisory committee on resource allocation, will examine ways of ensuring that places with more illness get more money. The Nuffield Trust said the formula is 'inequitable', 'deeply flawed' and does not take account of levels of deprivation in areas covered by GP practices. The review will be the fourth such exercise since the formula came into use in 2004, without major changes resulting, it pointed out. Dr Becks Fisher, a GP and director of research and policy at the Nuffield Trust thinktank, also cautioned that while 'the government plans to pay for these changes by making savings in other parts of the NHS, there is no guarantee this will be successful.' Louise Gittins, the chair of the Local Government Association, said: 'Health inequalities are estimated to cost the NHS an extra £4.8bn a year, society around £31bn in lost productivity, and between £20bn and £32bn a year in lost tax revenue and benefit payments. Health is therefore a major determinant of economic performance and prosperity.' Prof Kate Pickett, an expert in health inequalities at York University and academic director of Health Equity North, said that recent years had brought 'worse health and more inequalities and a bigger north-south divide. 'We have repeatedly called for government to target spending to the places that are most in need. So Wes Streeting's drive to increase health spending in the most deprived places is very welcome.' But, she added, ministers should also cancel planned cuts to welfare benefits and start a public discussion about the merits of a basic income to improve population health in poor areas.

Dogs pulling on leads cause large number of hand and wrist injuries in UK, study shows
Dogs pulling on leads cause large number of hand and wrist injuries in UK, study shows

The Guardian

time40 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Dogs pulling on leads cause large number of hand and wrist injuries in UK, study shows

Walking your dog may be good for you and your canine companion, but research shows it can also be dangerous. While the health benefits are numerous – encouraging increased activity levels and physical exercise, improving cardiovascular health and weight – researchers found that being pulled on the lead increases the risk of falls and injuries. The research published in BMJ Injury Prevention estimates that there are so many hand and wrist injuries among the walkers of the UK's 13 million pet dogs that it could be costing the NHS in excess of £23m a year. Hand and wrist injuries account for up to 30% of all cases treated in accident and emergency departments and 20% of acute fractures. The British Society for the Surgery of the Hand says hooking fingers under a dog's collar can cause finger fractures, while wrapping the lead around the wrist, hand or fingers can cause serious injury if the dog pulls suddenly. Experts from Raigmore hospital in Inverness and Sengkang general hospital in Singapore reviewed five US studies involving almost 500,000 injuries from dog walking. Of these, more than a fifth were specific fractures or soft tissue injuries to the hand and wrist. Finger and wrist fractures were the most common, accounting for just under 62,000 injuries. And more than two-thirds of injuries were caused by the dog pulling its lead, with the remainder attributed to tripping over the lead or dog and falling, and getting tangled up in the lead. While dog walking is not any riskier than other activities for injuring hands or wrists, the study found that women and older adults were disproportionately affected by dog walking injuries. Almost three-quarters of the injuries were among women and just under a third among those over the age of 65. The authors then modelled the potential costs of treating fractures and casts for broken wrist bones and calculated that treating distal radius fractures caused by dog walking-related injury could cost the NHS in England more than £23m a year alone. The figure does not include the wider economic impact of patients being unable to work and potentially higher care needs, the authors added. 'Preventive measures, including safer leash practices and public safety guidance, should be implemented to reduce injury risk,' the authors said. 'Policies should teach dog owners optimal dog walking practices to minimise injuries and enforce adequate dog training to reduce the risk of dogs injuring the person walking them.' Responding to the findings, Mark Bowditch, the president of the British Orthopaedic Association, said: 'Dog ownership is often promoted and encouraged for the multiple health benefits described. Nevertheless this data demonstrates that injuries may occur during the day-to-day activities of living with dogs. 'Hand, wrist and arm or shoulder injuries are very common and increasing. They can cause considerable functional disruption and interference. Owners needed to be informed and educated about how best to prevent these injuries, he added. 'This may be the breed suitability and exercise needs, simple available training, leash design, usage and handling.' Ryan Trickett, the communications chair of the British Society for Surgery of the Hand, said: 'Anecdotally we have known there are some risks to dog walking for many years, and this review enables a better understanding of the burden of this problem. 'Sudden pulls from the lead or the collar can easily cause walkers to fall and fracture their wrist. However, other injuries are also common in this scenario. Twisting injuries to the finger can be particularly damaging as they cause tears in the skin and often underlying finger fractures. These injuries can be troublesome to treat and the finger rarely returns to complete normality.' A spokesperson for the Kennel Club said: 'All owners should recognise how important it is to train their dog to walk on a lead without pulling or straining, to avoid injury for both dogs and people, and as part of making sure their four-legged friend is a good canine citizen.' This would help ensure owners could remain in control of their dog while walking among people, other dogs and distractions, and without pulling. He added: 'Choosing the right collar, lead and equipment from the offset is also important – they need to be comfortable, well-fitted and secure.'

Watchdog acted ‘irrationally' in registering private gender clinic, court told
Watchdog acted ‘irrationally' in registering private gender clinic, court told

Rhyl Journal

time42 minutes ago

  • Rhyl Journal

Watchdog acted ‘irrationally' in registering private gender clinic, court told

Former nurse Susan Evans and a mother known as XX are taking legal action against the Care Quality Commission (CQC) over its decision to register the Gender Plus Hormone Clinic (GPHC) in Birmingham in January last year. The two are also challenging the regulator's decision to continue the clinic's registration and to allow it to prescribe cross-sex hormone treatment to 16 and 17-year-olds without conditions, made last December. The clinic, which was rated outstanding by the watchdog last year, treats people aged 16 and older, including through prescribing gender-affirming – masculinising or feminising – hormones, but, in line with the NHS, does not prescribe puberty blockers. Lawyers representing the two women told a hearing on Tuesday that the watchdog did not consider aspects that were 'obviously material' when making its decision, including the NHS's stance on hormone treatment for children aged 16 and 17 in light of the Cass Review. The watchdog is defending the claim, telling the court that it was 'abundantly clear that there was ample evidence' for its decision, while lawyers for the company which runs the clinic, Gender Plus Healthcare Limited, said the legal action was 'fatally flawed'. Opening the women's case on Tuesday, barrister Tom Cross KC said the clinic was believed to be the only hormone treatment provider to 16 and 17-year-olds in England, and that the claimants' concern was about safety, with Ms Evans previously stating she believed the registration 'creates a significant risk of a two-tier approach'. Mr Cross said: 'At arriving at the conclusion that the provider should continue to be registered without any conditions … the CQC has acted irrationally.' He added: 'It has not factored into its conclusion a number of aspects of the process on the NHS, informed by the Cass Review, which serve as important safeguards for children within the cohort and were obviously material.' The barrister said that had the CQC factored these in, it would have 'decided to exercise its power to halt the treatment' of under-18s, and that its decision was 'simply not open to them'. He claimed that 'at the very least' the court 'should require the CQC to think again about the adequacy of the safeguards'. Hormone treatment was previously provided on the NHS at the now-closed Gender Identity Development Service (Gids) run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, where Ms Evans previously worked. But a review published by Baroness Cass in April last year said that 'extreme caution' should be demonstrated when deciding to prescribe the treatment to 16 and 17-year-olds, and that there should be 'clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18'. The NHS has opened three specialist children's gender clinics and has plans for a further five covering the seven NHS regions in England by the end of 2026, but has said that all recommendations for hormone interventions must be endorsed by a national multi-disciplinary team (MDT). It is understood that the MDT has not yet received any recommendations for hormone treatment for 16 and 17-year-olds, since the Cass Review. GPHC was set up by Dr Aidan Kelly and is led by nurse consultant Paul Carruthers, who both worked at Gids, and has previously said it primarily treats patients aged between 16 and 25, using its own MDT. But Mr Cross said in written submissions that in the year up to June 2024, GPHC has 'accepted almost every single patient that it considered' for hormone treatment, and that the contrast with the NHS 'could not be more stark'. He said there were 'a number of key differences' between GPHC and the NHS safeguards, including that referrals to the former came from Dr Kelly's company, Kelly Psychology, which is unregulated. He said: 'It is, and ought to have been, obvious that the unregulated nature of the referrer enhanced the risk of patient safety.' He concluded: 'Either the CQC had to impose a condition which rationally ensured patient safety, or, if that were not possible, had to decide not to continue the registration.' Jamie Burton KC, for the CQC, said that there was 'ample evidence' that Kelly Psychology 'did not pose an unacceptable risk' to patients, and that a 'significant number' of those assessed by the company were not referred for treatment at GPHC. The court was told that the CQC found no evidence of 'improper decision making or anything that might flag a concern', and that the clinic was found to be 'committed to the safety and best interests of its patients'. He continued: 'CQC found GHPC to be acting in line with national guidance, including the NHS England 2024 Criteria. 'It found nothing to suggest that this was merely lip service or that GPHC management held an ideological commitment that was undermining its professional and regulatory commitments, or otherwise threatening the safety of patients.' He also said that the CQC 'had regard' to NHS processes, and that there could not be 'any legitimate doubt about the correctness of the ultimate outcome, or GPHC's continued registration'. He said: 'In its professional judgment, it found that the provider was taking reasonable steps to safeguard 16 and 17-year-olds by way of its existing processes.' Peter Mant KC, for Gender Plus Healthcare Limited, said that there was no legal requirement for a private provider to mirror NHS care and that the claimants' concerns 'do not have a high-quality evidence base'. He continued that the clinic's model was 'entirely consistent' with the Cass Review and NHS policy, and that patients 'no longer routinely have any input' from Kelly Psychology. He added that concerns related to the rate of accepting new patients were 'unjustified', and that the court should not 'go behind' the CQC's decision. The hearing before Mrs Justice Eady is expected to conclude on Wednesday, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store