Skip to main content

The Nuffield Trust warn of increased pressure on NHS following spending review.

The independent health care think tank has warned that notwithstanding the Chancellor’s announcement that NHS spending remains relatively protected into the financial year 2015/16, the financial outlook for the health service is set to worsen in the longer term if its leaders and staff fail to deliver much needed change.

Commenting, Nuffield Trust Chief Economist Anita Charlesworth said:

“Next month’s projections from the Office of Budget Responsibility are likely to conclude that the pressure on services such as health, pensions and long-term care will continue to rise faster than tax receipts, even after the economy has recovered.

“Against this background the Government faces choices at the next spending review in 2015 that are even tougher than those at present. By that point departmental spending on non-ring fenced areas such as policing and local government would have fallen by a third.

“In the absence of major tax rises or a relaxation of the Government’s borrowing targets it is difficult to see how the NHS could continue to be protected in such circumstances.

“To date the NHS has delivered its efficiency targets largely through strong central measures such as cutting administrative costs and holding down pay. These are short term fixes. The pace of change needs to increase in the NHS, with a greater focus on longer term transformation.

“Without such a shift we are storing up financial risk and NHS managers will find it harder and harder to match rising demand to a stagnant budget.

“Within the overall allocation for health, the administration budget is set for further cuts of 10 per cent in real terms. It is absolutely right that the front line should take priority when resources are scarce. However, with Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and the Care Quality Commission playing a vital role in ensuring quality and security of services, ministers must ensure that they have enough funding to do their jobs well.

“Many CCGs are already expressing concern about the financial pressure they are under given their current allocations. We need further clarification on where these cuts will fall, and assurance that the Government has fully considered any potential impact on the commissioning and oversight of care.

“The decision to allocate £3.8 billion to fund joint work across health and social care has the potential to help enable new ways of working which could meet the needs of patients better while improving efficiency. If it is to achieve this, new funding and pooled budgets must be supported by cultural and leadership commitment to integrated working at a local level, and by governance structures which help create common goals across social care and the NHS.

“It is critical that these funds are carefully targeted towards innovative service models, with decisions backed by careful evaluations of what works and what doesn’t. As demonstrated in our latest report, released today, past studies of integrated and community care initiatives have often failed to provide evidence for cost savings in the short term.

The Government must ensure that they take into account broader benefits and the long-term impact of new programmes of joint work.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As