The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Bruce Wayne]

Goodness. Who on earth ever suggested that the US had an efficient or effective healthcare system? I'd imagine they're one of the worst for both.

"The government proposals to change the NHS are largely based on the idea that the NHS is less efficient and effective than other countries, especially the US," said Professor Colin Pritchard, the Bournemouth University academic who analysed post-1980 data for the report.

The 2nd report you link to was from this year. That the health service still appears to be doing quite well despite spending less money has to be a positive I'd have thought?

I appreciate that context is everything and all, but this from the Telegraph piece made me chuckle.

"The only serious criticism of the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive."

 

[Kiwi]

The US is shocking. I'd never live there because of the dramas they have with privatized healthcare.
New Zealand is alright but it's quickly becoming an issue of where the money will come from as the government starts prioritizing other areas.
Although having said that if the Government follows through on reducing child poverty and improving housing quality of state homes there might be a preventative effect on chronic disease as a result.
You are very lucky to have the NHS.

 

[Coach]

The 2nd report you link to was from this year. That the health service still appears to be doing quite well despite spending less money has to be a positive I'd have thought?

I think that most people would agree that if the Tories had maintained or increased spending the NHS performance would have been even better.

As it is they have wasted £3bn on a top down reorganisation that they had no mandate for, that Lansley tried to abrogate responsibility for and that they now privately admit was a mistake.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

As an aside, here are the two reports linked at source

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v105/n11/full/bjc2011393a.html - this one looks only at cancer patients and runs from 1979-2006, so it's not clear how this has changed from 2006-2014, nor how valid it is across the board.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...rt/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf

If you look in the methodology, it appears that the results were derived from a self-reported survey of patients, and how they perceived various facets of their care. The UK results were arrived at after surveying 1,000, 500 and 1,000 people respectively across the three editions. I've no idea if that's a sound sample size or not, but there are various challenges when using self-reporting for things.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think that most people would agree that if the Tories had maintained or increased spending the NHS performance would have been even better.

As it is they have wasted £3bn on a top down reorganisation that they had no mandate for, that Lansley tried to abrogate responsibility for and that they now privately admit was a mistake.

As mentioned in my previous post, the study you linked to in the 1st article got its data from 1979-2006, so it doesn't cover the latest government at all. That the news article discussing the report then makes links to the 'cuts' made by the latest government is a little concerning.

I mean things with cancer care may have got worse, but I fail to see how a piece of research that stopped collecting data 3 years before the election can make such a conclusion?

 

[Coach]

In case you didn't notice it is a well respected longitudinal study repeated every four years. Funnily enough , the UK consitently comes top. You might fail to see why it might make such a conclusion but the medical profession certainly can. Sorry if the facts don't fit your narrative.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

In case you didn't notice it is a well respected longitudinal study repeated every four years. Funnily enough , the UK consitently comes top. You might fail to see why it might make such a conclusion but the medical profession certainly can. Sorry if the facts don't fit your narrative.

Sorry, you've lost me. Are you talking about the paper published in 2011 by the chap from Bournemouth University?

 

[Coach]

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/08/07/JRSMpaperPritWall.pdf?guni=Article:in body link
for one.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/08/07/JRSMpaperPritWall.pdf?guni=Article:in body link
for one.

Again though, that goes from 1979-2005. How can it make any statement on performance > 2009?

 

[The Esk]

Tory myth no. X

There were larger increases in non-medical staff in the NHS under Labour than in medical staff.

Wrong!



This interactive chart shows the numbers (whole time equivalents) of medical and dental, and non-medical NHS hospital and community health care staff, per 10,000 people in England between 2001 and 2011.

The number of medical and dental staff has risen by 44 per cent over this period, while the number of non-medical staff, which is around tenfold higher, has risen by much less (16 per cent).

Source: Nuffield Trust

 

[The Esk]

Medical intervention improvements as shown by reduction in mortality rates:



This chart shows that the rate of deaths in England that were considered avoidable through medical intervention, steadily declined between 2001 and 2010. The chart is based on data from the Office for National Statistics.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Medical intervention improvements as shown by reduction in mortality rates:

View attachment 4645

This chart shows that the rate of deaths in England that were considered avoidable through medical intervention, steadily declined between 2001 and 2010. The chart is based on data from the Office for National Statistics.

What have they done since then?

 

[Coach]

Again though, that goes from 1979-2005. How can it make any statement on performance > 2009?

So what? Both previous and subsequent reports make the same findings. It is a clear and consistant finding.

The point is that at the time of Lansley driving through his unwanted reforms (while receiving a £22,000 donation from a private health company) there was clear evidence of the NHS already being the best health service in the world. The Tories ignored the advice from the medical profession, claimed parliamentary privilege so as to enable them to disobey the law of the land and so avoid revealing the risks of their reforms, cut spending on the NHS and have still managed to waste £3bn in doing so.

 

[The Esk]

What have they done since then?

This is the latest published data as far as I can tell....

 

[Bruce Wayne]

This is the latest published data as far as I can tell....

Ah, fair enough. I wonder if it will be possible to get some data out before the election? Would seem the best way to begin to understand any impact of the last 4-5 years.