It's 'economic murder': NHS cuts are blamed for 120,000 extra deaths over the past seven years

[Jimgward]

It's 'economic murder': NHS cuts are blamed for 120,000 extra deaths over the past seven years

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... z4ybDcFmDq
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

• 120,000 patients died after cuts were made to health and social care budgets
  The majority of them, who were over 60, died in care homes or their own homes
  Experts from Cambridge University likened the recent cuts to 'economic murder'

An extra 120,000 patients have died in the past seven years following cuts to health and social care budgets, a major study has found.
The patients were all over 60 and the majority died in care homes or their own homes, rather than in hospital.
Researchers from Cambridge University likened the cuts to 'economic murder' and said local NHS and social care funding means vulnerable patients are not receiving the help they badly need.
They also linked a fall in nurse numbers, particularly to district nurses who work in the community, to the additional deaths.

The study by Cambridge, Oxford and University College London is the first of its kind to look at the effects of funding reductions.
It is based on a computer model which calculated how many deaths should have occurred between 2010 and 2017, based on the number of deaths from 2000 to 2010.
It also predicted that if the current trends continue, there would be another 100 excess deaths a day between now and 2020. Researchers said that, although they could not prove the deaths were caused by the fall in health and social care spending, there was a very strong link.

One of the lead authors, Professor Lawrence King, from Cambridge University, said: 'It is now very clear that austerity does not promote growth or reduce deficits – it is bad economics, but good class politics.
'This study shows it is also a public health disaster. It is not an exaggeration to call it economic murder.'
The study, published in the BMJ Open journal, is complicated and the researchers admitted there may be other 'factors' behind the increased deaths such as the fact the population is ageing, unhealthy lifestyles and deprivation.
Dr Ben Maruthappu of University College London, senior author of the study, said: 'While the Government's investment into social care earlier this year is welcome, it is clear that more must be done, with better modernisation of services, and protection of health and social care funding.' The research also found that previous rises in life expectancy rates had stalled.

The average woman was living 3.8 months less than previous predictions and the average man 5.2 months less.
Life expectancy rates are 82.9 for women and 79.2 years for men. The findings come amid calls from the medical profession for the Government to substantially increase health and social care funding in next Wednesday's Budget. A Department of Health spokesman said: 'As the researchers themselves note, this study cannot be used to draw any firm conclusions about the cause of excess deaths.
'The NHS is treating more people than ever before and funding is at record levels with an £8billion increase by 2020-21. We've also backed adult social care with a £2billion investment, and we have 12,700 more doctors and 10,600 more nurses on our wards since May 2010.'

[Jimgward]

The above article I have posted in it's entirety. I first saw it on the BMJ site, but then searched Daily Mail as, from experience, I know that will be accepted more by more people on here...

It's truly shocking. It makes for terrible reading and I have never seen a REDUCTION in life expectancy coming through. Does this mean we have peaked in terms of our treatment of the population and the NHS is no longer fit for service?

[Poppy]

I'm really not sure about this Jim. They say they have based their projected deaths from the period 2000 -2010 but they don't appear to have taken into account that the population surely increased in the period 2010 -2017 so if that was the case then larger population leads to higher deaths surely although I readily admit I have no proof of my assumptions.

[Poppy]

Ps I'm right!! Population in 2001 was 58,789194,in 2011 - 63,182000 and in 2016 the grand total of 65,111143 so surely an extra 17k deaths per year on an extra 5-7 million people could be expected.
Pah! these professors think they know it all,they want to come and have a word with Professor Poppy here!!

[Dominic]

The thing is, the health cuts weren't exactly optional. The UK doesn't have the money. Simple as that. There will never be enough money to satisfy the health service. Plus they should look at their own procedures for saving money. Like properly claiming money back from other countries etc.

[Jimgward]

I think the answer is in improvements to the service itself plus a complete re-dseign. A huge problem today is bed-blocking - usually by elderly or infirm patients who cannot look after themselves and are in a hospital bed, when they should go through 'reablement' as its called. This is where you remove them from hospital with the aim of assisting them to look after themselves in their own home as early as possible. It means the NHS and Social Care from the Council, cooperating and creating a Care Plan and expected Outcome. They then usually have an intensive 6-week schedule where a service user gets around 15 hours of care in their own home. After 6 weeks, it's deigned to be cut down to allow them independent living or minimal care.

Only a few places are properly doing this now. As an example, a bed in a hospital costs £500 per day. Residential care homes cost £700 per week. Reablement around £300 per week. Social Care around £13 per hour. The savings could be massive. Billions. Also, the patient gets better care and will live longer and better. Care at home is the very best for you. If you are 70+ and spend a week in a hospital bed with no rehabilition, you lose 14% muscle mass and age 8 years. Few get this back. The answer, hospital is the last place you want to go when 70+.

[Poppy]

Jim you are naughty. You post a damning report about the NHS and when I point out the errors in the report you blithely ignore
Ps I agree wirh your above post though!

[Varky]

Probably Jim posted the article as a subject for discussion and did not necessarily agree with it.

[Poppy]

I think he does Varky - see his 2nd post.

[Jimgward]

Actually, I am open-minded about the conclusions and as Poppy has pointed out, not all academic studies can be 100% accepted as is.

My second post, questioning if the NHS was fit for purpose, was a discussion point. I am greatly in favour of the principle of the NHS, but realise that in today's world, what was designed in the 1950s as a sticking plaster to fix reactively, needs to change to being proactive, look at wellbeing and also move care from hospitals to closer to home. The impact on the economy, for example, is never factored when someone has to take a day off to attend an outpatient appointment, where they are held up for hours and it takes 10 minutes with a consultant, queues for a standard test and more. Consultants should, in some cases, travel into the community for localised testing/consultation, for example.

My other post re reablement is just one example of how the services can be fixed for very little cost or actually saving money. I must admit to being biased here. I run the UK side of a Finnish supplier of digital technologies to enable mobile workers to better work with patients, to revolutionise the health & social care map etc. I will plough on trying to change by persuasion, but really, government the management of the NHS and Councils, need to take the bull by the horns and change. I have offered to give things for free and they only pay from savings - and it still doesn't work. The culture in the NHS is it's biggest impediment to change. They are ill-equipped do accept change for the better. So, money is a big part of the problem, but not the entire solution. Money should be given with conditions. The answer is not to privatise the entire service, but to allow partnership approaches to making such as huge service work better - not for massive PLC profits and a drive to then deliver a service at the lowest possible price.

At the end of the day, in the western world, the NHS is one of the cheapest per head. Half the cost of delivering healthcare in the US - yet Theresa May, in her meeting with Trump in the US, asked US healthcare companies to come to the UK - that wasn't approved and isn't her remit. Why would massive US healthcare companies necessarily run our NHS better?

The NHS is the third largest corporate in the world. Third to the Chinese Army and the Indian railroad company. However, in reality, each Trust, each GP practice etc. is a semi if not full autonomous organisation who gets funded and runs the way they want.

[Devil]

At the end of the day, in the western world, the NHS is one of the cheapest per head.

You pays your money; you get whats you pays for!

[Poppy]

Good post Jim. If only I was younger you could employ me and together we could sort the NHS out!!

[Jimgward]

Good post Jim. If only I was younger you could employ me and together we could sort the NHS out!!

The solutions are staring us in the face.... Culture the wall that blocks us....

Terrible that in 2017, district nurses still use paper diaries, yet will use facebook, snapchat, WhatsApp and whatever - but their fear of using digital solutions on their phones, hold back progress, patient safety and costs

[jeba]

At the end of the day, in the western world, the NHS is one of the cheapest per head.

I read (don´t remember where though) that you pay about 12 % of your income for the the NHS. If that´s correct (is it?) it sounds very little compared to my home country of Germany where you pay more than 18% for health and caregiving insurance. So no wonder that there seems to be a lot remaining to be desired.

[Poppy]

Not quite right Jeba! It is actually quite complicated. You can earn up to £157 per week before you pay any national ins contribution then it is 12% until you earn £866 per week and after that 2% so if you were earning £1000 per week you would pay£87.76 in NI contributions BUT only a small portion of this goes to the NHS,the majority funding pensions and contributory based benefits.

[Jimgward]

Since I started this one and it’s become apparent that I am very much in favour of a free at point of treatment, NHS - at ALL costs, if necessary...

I am more than half way through this Michael Moore film about health in the US - where he also visits Canada and the UK....

Well worth a watch.

https://youtu.be/WVRRu4cpVYs

[Poppy]

I had to attend our Doctors today for blood tests and in making conversation with the Nurse I said I hoped that there would be a pay rise for her in the Budget. I doubt it she said as although we are NHS we are employed by the practice and therefore the Doctors have the say on what pay we receive and it is less than I would earn in the Hospital. I was quite amazed at this! She did qualify her statement by saying she loved working at the practice and of course found the hours much better.
That was this morning . This afternoon I had to return for a Podiatrist appointment - yes free treatment for pensioners! - and yes I probably could have made the appointments to follow on had I had my diary with me at the time!! - anyway the Podiatrist was paid by the NHS and has never actually received the 1% rise each year as she has been receiving incremental rises. I asked her when she will get to the max of her pay scale and she had no idea but had been a Podiatrist since qualifying 10 years ago.