Parity of esteem has never been delivered
Before becoming an MP, I worked in the NHS for 22 years, primarily in mental health services. In my previous profession, I had seen the worst of it: children as young as nine self-harming, and people taking their lives whilst on waiting lists. The so-called 'parity of esteem' the coalition government had spoken about was never delivered. In fact, mental health services were some of the first to be cut as the NHS's budgets tightened in the austerity period.
But since then we have seen drastic social changes which have worsened young peoples' mental health. Generation Z are more dependent on social media and more isolated from their peers. Technology has become both more central to their daily lives and accessible from an early age. As a result, their need for mental health services has increased at a time when they have been depleted and it's harder than ever to access treatment.
Our system and attitudes towards mental health are outdated. The fact it has taken 42 years to update the UK's primary piece of mental health legislation is perhaps the biggest indictment of how reluctant we have been to address it. I was pleased to hear in the King's Speech that this government is ready to grasp the nettle of mental health reform and pass a new Bill that addresses the multifaceted issues caused by the 1983 Mental Health Act. That includes the lack of autonomy given to patients, and the class and racial disparities of those detained under the provisions of the law.
Many patients are reliant on the NHS for long-term care after being discharged, and we cannot solve the crisis unless we look at a wider approach which encompasses social care, local agencies to support patients who need rehousing, and, most importantly, rethink what we expect from the NHS. Legislation can only take us so far. I know from my own experience that recruitment and retention is something the government must consider in their Workforce Plan – expected to be published this summer. Fewer people want to become mental health nurses, and it's understandable why: hours are long, and the pay is low compared to the private sector. This means that we rely on huge numbers of foreign workers, which is unsustainable. The long-term solution is to incentivise local people to begin lifetime careers in the NHS. That means investing in the workforce, not trying to constantly do more with less.
We must be willing to talk about the merits of other reforms outside of the healthcare system – such welfare reforms in the government's Get Britain Working plans. I know from my previous profession that many people with mental health issues and long-term health conditions can thrive in the workplace when given the necessary support, and it can hugely benefit their mental wellbeing. The Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall was correct in her assessment that health and welfare are 'two sides of the same coin'. This can be seen most of all in young people. The Neet population (not in employment, education, or training) has been growing – it is around one in eight people aged 16-24. These people have disproportionately high mental health issues. We currently have 2.8 million people locked out of work due to long-term health conditions – 200,000 of whom are actively searching for employment. Part of the future of the mental health system will be providing the correct support for people – helping them raise their living standards and improving their mental health.
The mental health system will be in a constant state of evolution. My former colleagues in the mental health sector will be learning to grapple with issues faced by a generation increasingly dependent on technology which makes them more connected with the rest of the world, yet more isolated from their peers and more in need of mental health services than ever before.
This article first appeared in the 15 May Spotlight policy report on Healthcare. To read the full report click here.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Contradiction' in figures makes health experts question NHS data
Health analysts have said they have spotted a 'contradiction' in NHS data as they called for more transparency in the way waiting list figures are reported. Experts suggest that more patients are being referred for treatment than leaving the waiting list, despite the overall waiting list coming down. Analysis found that in May, for every 100 referrals for pre-planned care, only 86 patient 'pathways' were complete – a scenario that would expect to see the waiting list getting bigger. But the official figures for May, published last month, show that the waiting list for routine hospital treatment in England had dropped to its lowest level for more than two years. 'There appears to be a contradiction in the data,' analysts from the Nuffield Trust think tank said. Writing a piece for part of the Quality Watch programme, the experts claim that an increase in NHS activity alone has not been enough to cause the reduction in the waiting list. Their new report examines so-called 'unreported removals', which occur when someone is taken off the waiting list for a reason other than that person having received their treatment that month. The report says that over the last two financial years there has been an average of 244,500 unreported removals a month. Though the waiting list has started to go down, unreported removals have gone up, they add. Officials from the Department and Health and Social Care insist that over the last 12 months, the number and percentage of unreported removals are lower than 2019. The new report points out that some of these unreported removals will represent patients that did get treatment but it was not recorded properly at the time. Another issue could be problems with NHS software and data management processes. The authors of the review wrote: 'Improving the data quality of waiting lists is important to ensure that people who should not be on the list, like people who have been treated privately or left the country, are no longer counted among those waiting to be seen. 'However, accusations of gaming the validation process, by removing referrals from the waiting list inappropriately without treatment, are likely to persist in the absence of transparency about what actions the unreported removals materially represent. 'The NHS is delivering more planned care, but still not enough to keep up with demand. 'The planned care that is reported is not enough to explain the reduction in the elective waiting list, and the publicly available data provides little more insight.' Officials estimate that 85% of the reduction in the waiting list is because of increased NHS 'activity' and suggest that 15% is because of unreported removals. According to the latest NHS figures, an estimated 7.36 million treatments were waiting to be carried out at the end of May, relating to just under 6.23 million patients, down from 7.39 million treatments and just over 6.23 million patients at the end of April. These are the lowest totals since March 2023 for treatments and April 2023 for patients. The list hit a record high in September 2023, with 7.77 million treatments and 6.50 million patients. The size of the list had been on an upward trend for much of the last 10 years, passing three million treatments in 2014, four million in 2017, five million in 2021 and seven million in 2022. In February 2020, the last full month before the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, the list stood at 4.57 million treatments. The authors of the latest review add: 'The information available in the public domain is insufficient for independent scrutiny of the elective waiting list, and consequently for holding government to account. 'Removals from the waiting list should be described in publicly available data in a meaningful way; the current process is unduly obscure. 'Until more transparent reporting is provided, accountability around unreported removals remains impossible and the planned care waiting list will continue to be a misleading indicator of how the NHS is dealing with demand.' It comes as the NHS in England is to reveal its latest waiting list figures on Thursday. Commenting on the analysis, an NHS England spokesperson said: 'NHS staff have made significant progress in reducing waiting lists in the last year – down by more than 260,000 since June 2024 – and this is driven by the fact that 2,300 more patients are receiving treatment every day compared to last year.' 'While the validation process has a small impact on the overall waiting list – as is made crystal clear in our published monthly waiting list data – it's right we regularly clinically review those waiting so hospitals can prioritise patients more accurately and deploy their resources efficiently.' A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson added: 'Our drive to clear the huge waiting list backlog we inherited includes making sure all patients are getting the right treatment as quickly as possible. 'That's why we are supporting GPs to seek specialist advice before making referrals, and screening existing waiting lists to check that all patients need to be on there – freeing up capacity to get more people seen more quickly. 'This is one element of our wider work to cut waiting times for patients and improve productivity through our Plan for Change, through which we have already delivered over four million extra appointments and cut the waiting list by 260,000.'
Western Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
‘Contradiction' in figures makes health experts question NHS data
Experts suggest that more patients are being referred for treatment than leaving the waiting list, despite the overall waiting list coming down. Analysis found that in May, for every 100 referrals for pre-planned care, only 86 patient 'pathways' were complete – a scenario that would expect to see the waiting list getting bigger. But the official figures for May, published last month, show that the waiting list for routine hospital treatment in England had dropped to its lowest level for more than two years. 'There appears to be a contradiction in the data,' analysts from the Nuffield Trust think tank said. Writing a piece for part of the Quality Watch programme, the experts claim that an increase in NHS activity alone has not been enough to cause the reduction in the waiting list. Their new report examines so-called 'unreported removals', which occur when someone is taken off the waiting list for a reason other than that person having received their treatment that month. The report says that over the last two financial years there has been an average of 244,500 unreported removals a month. Though the waiting list has started to go down, unreported removals have gone up, they add. Officials from the Department and Health and Social Care insist that over the last 12 months, the number and percentage of unreported removals are lower than 2019. The new report points out that some of these unreported removals will represent patients that did get treatment but it was not recorded properly at the time. Another issue could be problems with NHS software and data management processes. The authors of the review wrote: 'Improving the data quality of waiting lists is important to ensure that people who should not be on the list, like people who have been treated privately or left the country, are no longer counted among those waiting to be seen. 'However, accusations of gaming the validation process, by removing referrals from the waiting list inappropriately without treatment, are likely to persist in the absence of transparency about what actions the unreported removals materially represent. 'The NHS is delivering more planned care, but still not enough to keep up with demand. 'The planned care that is reported is not enough to explain the reduction in the elective waiting list, and the publicly available data provides little more insight.' Officials estimate that 85% of the reduction in the waiting list is because of increased NHS 'activity' and suggest that 15% is because of unreported removals. According to the latest NHS figures, an estimated 7.36 million treatments were waiting to be carried out at the end of May, relating to just under 6.23 million patients, down from 7.39 million treatments and just over 6.23 million patients at the end of April. These are the lowest totals since March 2023 for treatments and April 2023 for patients. Official figures for May show that the waiting list for routine hospital treatment in England had dropped to its lowest level for more than two years (Jeff Moore/PA) The list hit a record high in September 2023, with 7.77 million treatments and 6.50 million patients. The size of the list had been on an upward trend for much of the last 10 years, passing three million treatments in 2014, four million in 2017, five million in 2021 and seven million in 2022. In February 2020, the last full month before the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, the list stood at 4.57 million treatments. The authors of the latest review add: 'The information available in the public domain is insufficient for independent scrutiny of the elective waiting list, and consequently for holding government to account. 'Removals from the waiting list should be described in publicly available data in a meaningful way; the current process is unduly obscure. 'Until more transparent reporting is provided, accountability around unreported removals remains impossible and the planned care waiting list will continue to be a misleading indicator of how the NHS is dealing with demand.' It comes as the NHS in England is to reveal its latest waiting list figures on Thursday. Commenting on the analysis, an NHS England spokesperson said: 'NHS staff have made significant progress in reducing waiting lists in the last year – down by more than 260,000 since June 2024 – and this is driven by the fact that 2,300 more patients are receiving treatment every day compared to last year.' 'While the validation process has a small impact on the overall waiting list – as is made crystal clear in our published monthly waiting list data – it's right we regularly clinically review those waiting so hospitals can prioritise patients more accurately and deploy their resources efficiently.' A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson added: 'Our drive to clear the huge waiting list backlog we inherited includes making sure all patients are getting the right treatment as quickly as possible. 'That's why we are supporting GPs to seek specialist advice before making referrals, and screening existing waiting lists to check that all patients need to be on there – freeing up capacity to get more people seen more quickly. 'This is one element of our wider work to cut waiting times for patients and improve productivity through our Plan for Change, through which we have already delivered over four million extra appointments and cut the waiting list by 260,000.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Ian Murray's Laffer curve comments point to ignorance of economics
The Laffer Curve epitomises economists' quest for mathematical and scientific rigour and respect. A lot of economic data is collected and presented in the form of graphs from which relationships between variables may be deduced, but often without proper statistical evaluation of the accuracy or significance of the results. But at least there is data on which the calculations and predictions can be based, however unreliable. READ MORE: Meeting details between Ian Murray and Unionist think tank revealed The Laffer Curve purports to plot tax revenue against rate of taxation. It has only two points, one at either end of the baseline (or x-axis). Arthur Laffer postulated that there would be a line between these extremes, but the shape of it is entirely hypothetical. No data has ever been gathered to establish where intermediate points might lie, because to do so would be highly disruptive of the fiscal management of a country's economy. So the Laffer Curve is a figment of the imagination. Ian Murray's quoting of it is a worrying indication of a lack of knowledge or understanding of key economic concepts. Julian Smith Limekilns ANENT my recent observations on our failing NHS (Letters, Aug 9), it pains me to point out further inadequacies. In my previous letter I highlighted a case of a friend where a tissue biopsy was taken during an invasive procedure on January 24 but she still hadn't been informed as to whether the pathology was good or bad news. After great effort and much time spent telephoning hard-to-contact NHS admin staff, she discovered that a pathology report was created on the April 17 yet the correspondence to her on the subject was only generated very recently and was in the post. So my friend is still waiting, six months post-op, to discover whether she has a significant, possibly life-threatening, condition while the tissue sample and the result spent time sitting waiting to be attended to. In the same vein, another friend who is undergoing chemotherapy for a malignancy had a CT scan three weeks ago to monitor progress but has had her review appointment this week rescheduled because the CT scan has yet to be scrutinised by a specialist radiologist. In an ideal world, the CT could be reported on in real time, but for financial reasons everything is on hold – including the patient's state of mind for weeks until the scan is checked by a radiologist who wasn't present when the CT was taken but who could actually be based in Australia doing part-time NHS work. As I stated previously, I support the NHS wholeheartedly but it is underfunded, understaffed and stretching to provide a service to a standard it simply cannot achieve. When things are overstretched they break, and that is what is about to happen with our NHS if the basic problems are not dealt with. We deserve and pay for a first-class NHS but we don't get it. David J Crawford Glasgow CLARE Haughey's excellent but chilling account of the very real peril of creeping privatisation of our NHS (Aug 11) ought to make us all sit up and pay attention. Nothing can be comfortably assumed to be safe. And, on the watch of a soi-disant Labour government? How this ought to sicken us all, the more so when you remember that it was Attlee's post-war Labour administration that brought the NHS into being in the first place. And this precisely because preceding private healthcare simply did not serve people at all. READ MORE: Clare Haughey: If Labour win power in Scotland, what will they do to our NHS? Clare names and hopefully shames the beneficiaries of these obscene donations. This is indeed courageous. Good on you, Clare. I am reminded of two apposite things. Firstly, an acquaintance of mine recently spent some weeks in the USA. He suffered a fall, being knocked down by a cyclist. This required required a hospital visit to outpatients, and 11 stitches to a finger. Relatively minor, you might say, although, of course, unpleasant. For this he received a bill of $650, with a further $60 to be paid for post-treatment care. Luckily for him, his holiday insurance met most, if not all, of this. Secondly, those with a longer memory may recall studies undertaken by the World Health Organisation on at least two occasions that I recall, where the quality of healthcare received was compared over 39 countries. READ MORE: Three new cancer drugs approved for use by NHS Scotland On both occasions, the country offering the best care was France, and number 39 out of 39 was ... yes, you guessed correctly, USA. The UK came in at around half way, at 19. This being the case, why on earth would we wish to emulate a profit-driven broken system which serves none but the insurance companies and their bloated shareholders? Brian York Dumfries
