 |
|
In 1979, the Conservative Party came to power to cure the ‘sick man of Europe’. The unchecked powers of the Unions, most ably assisted by the Socialist Labour Party, had ravaged the British economy. Britain was sick and decrepit. Malaise, inflexibility and economic low self-esteem were widely reported. It took the Conservatives to administer the medicine, a not always pleasant experience for some, but as history has shown us all, a necessary economic tonic for Britain as a whole.
|
Colorectal Cancer (% 5 yr survival rate) |
Breast Cancer (% 5 yr survival rate) |
|
|
England |
51.8 |
77.8 |
|
Norway |
59.5 |
84.1 |
|
Germany |
61.2 |
78.2 |
|
Slovenia |
50.5 |
75.3 |
Yesterday, evidence was presented that confirmed that Britain is once more the sick man of Europe (see table above). Despite record increases in NHS expenditure since Labour came to power, British cancer mortality rates still rank amongst the lowest in Europe. The Lancet Oncology Journal claimed, on the basis of their figures, that the government’s cancer plan introduced in 2000 in England (2001 in Scotland) was not working. Cancer charities have since cited the absence of proper radiotherapy services as a major cause of poor survival rates. Tellingly, the report called for a “fundamental assessment of the ways in which the NHS operates”.
So, in summary, despite record investment, much legislation, the employment of more doctors and nurses, the reorganisation of primary care administration (three times), the introduction of private funding via the PFI initiatives (often leading to budget overspend), the appointment of a ‘Cancer Tsar’ and the contracting of a vast array of management consultants at large cost, this ten year-old Labour government has failed to put Britain on a par with the health of the rest of Europe. What a total disgrace. Furthermore, at a time when they have failed our cancer patients, they have embarked upon a hospital closure campaign that will adversely affect healthcare services. And yet, they still continue to tax us more and more.
Once more it would appear that it falls to the Conservative Party to administer the necessary medicine. It will not be an easy task. Confronting the entrenched interests that blight the NHS, dealing with the learned helplessness of the medical staff, eradicating poor clinical practice, emphasising services that are evidence-based as opposed to those “that we have always provided”, removing unnecessary management, localising decision-making, and most importantly, diminishing the power of the Department of Health, are goals that will not be easily achieved. We must, however, be determined to do so. For if we are successful, Britain will be bequeathed a health service that is fit for a First World nation in the 21st century.
August 22nd, 2007 - 11:22 am
Finally, it seems that the Government has woken up to the concerns over cancer care within the UK, all be it, thanks to ‘The Lancet Oncology Journal’. It is believed that cancer rates will increase by 100% over the next twenty years, which is a stark and worrying trend. Lets hope that whilst the future of cancer care is being debated, all parties remember to not only plan for health care today, but also health care in the future. With an increasingly elderly population the provision and need for healthcare is not going to abate. I’m glad that the Conservatives are putting health at the heart of their campaign.
August 22nd, 2007 - 2:28 pm
Thanks for the comment Michelle.
On reflection, I might have also added that the regions with the worst record on cancer mortality rates happen also to be those where the Labour party have long held sway, or more recently, have had control of the devolved Parliament. Scotland, in particular, has been receiving EU levels of healthcare funding for over three decades. Sadly, the dreadful cancer survival rates there are evidence of how an unreformed NHS is bad for everyone's health. Healthcare provision in this country should be about best medical practice, not about protecting vested interest and following a defunct political dogma.
August 22nd, 2007 - 2:56 pm
Great article, Philip. Non-delivery by Labour in other policy areas is just negligent; but when it comes to clinical outcomes and survival rates (whether from cancer or anything else) it is murderous.
August 22nd, 2007 - 3:16 pm
Thanks Wilted Rose.
The Conservative Party should continue to lead on the domestic front with the NHS. Not just because it is good politics, but because it has a moral duty to do so.
August 22nd, 2007 - 4:14 pm
But you don’t have any policies on the NHS. Phil, you believe in privatisation but the Tories would never get elected with that in their manifesto. So then, what? Your party seem to be just suggesting more Blairite reform but with smaller increases to the NHS budget. We all know that the NHS has got better but just not as fast as we all know it can. I believe it would be better still by stripping out marketisation, the provider / commissioner split and introducing local accountability. To Phil’s credit we know where he stands, the NHS for the poor and everyone else pays. What does Cameron believe? The man has no credibility anymore and is looking like a bigger mistake for the Tories as every week goes by.
August 22nd, 2007 - 4:23 pm
Good to hear from you Graeme. You must be over the moon to now have a proper Socialist in charge of our country. Increased taxation and redistribution lives on!!
Two points:
1) I do not believe in a privatised health service.
2) Your own view of a future NHS is rather concerning. Have you recently been on holiday to Havana?
August 22nd, 2007 - 5:05 pm
And you’re in favour of cutting taxes and doing nothing about inequality. But then Cameron says something about the poor the next day and then Redwood says cut taxes, spending and make it easier for businesses to sack people. I get really confused and don’t really know where the Tories are on anything anymore. However if you’re putting the extreme right-winger Johnson up for Mayor of London then that probably gives us a clue. In response to your two points: 1)Sorry, must have misunderstood. 2) I think you’ll find that no private health companies run an internal market splitting their provision and commissionng sides. Are you saying that, for instance Bucks County Council social services are inherently Communist because the provider and commissioner sides are not split? I have been on holiday to Cuba. Fantastic holiday, I recommend it. Most things about the country don’t work very well amd the human rights abuses are unacceptable. As a member of Amnesty I contribute to an organisation which campaign against these. However the health system is excellent for such a poor country and health outcomes rank compare with much of the developed world. Cuban infant mortality is now the best in the Americas alongside Canada and better than the US.
August 22nd, 2007 - 5:24 pm
Ah, I see those heralds of right wing politics are the ones doing best: “The best performers are Nordic countries such as Sweden and Norway and central European countries.” It seems that keeping Anglo American type right-wing parties out of government is the best ticket to better health. Discuss. Perhaps with the Tory Party’s impending implosion under the weight of its own contradictions then something like a European Christian Democratic (without the religion I hope) will emerge. It’s your only hope for the future I think. You also fail to mention that the Lancet Report does comment upon improvements in recent years.
August 23rd, 2007 - 8:46 am
the employment of more doctors and nurses I do wonder about these figures – would read like to see them NETT and FTE…too often gross figures are used and part-timers classed as full-timers. I should also like to know where “nurses” are employed and what functions. My assumption on Cancer treatment is that we have too few specialist doctors or centres; too much late-diagnosis, and simply too much disorganisation and clerical under-resourcing The money has gone on PFI, Computer Projects, Administration….but just think about GUM clinics and how poorly STIs are dealt with – yet those too have a cancer-screening function
August 23rd, 2007 - 9:44 am
TomTom
You are right to be suspicious about the effect of total numbers in the medical and nursing professions. The recent government-inspired debacle over the MTAS system has illustrated the waste of home-trained medical talent – every doctor has a former colleague/friend who has been left without a career post. Furthermore, nurses are often to be found in positions once occupied by doctors. More importantly, delays in radiotherapy treatement following diagnosis are a widespread problem. What sort of healthcare system thinks it is appropriate to give a human-being a diagnosis of cancer then tell them that there will be a delay in appropriate treatment? Answer – one run by a government that incentivised hospitals to speed up time-to-diagnosis then failed to fund adequate on-going cancer treatment services, i.e. a government that clearly has no clue about running a healthcare system.
August 23rd, 2007 - 9:52 am
Graeme
1) None of the countries that you list as beacons of the benefits of Socialism have a 100% general taxation funded base. Indeed, Sweden is presently instituting quite radical change.
2) I am sure that there have been improvements in recent years. One would hope so considering the large amount of money that has been thrown at the system (a doubling in total funding in recent years). As I mentioned in my earlier comment, the time to diagnosis has undoubtedly improved. However, what about the subsequent time to radiotherapy? And whilst you are considering that, how do you defend the Labour government continuing to fund Scotland's health service at a level above England's? Judging by the map it does not appear to have been well spent……
August 28th, 2007 - 8:35 am
Hang on, hang on. I’ve just found out where these stats are from. People diagnosed between 2000 & 2002. The Cancer Plan had just been published and the main advance of recent years, the reduction in time from diagnosis to treatment for cancer, had not really got started. The big increases in funding which the Tories opposed was only just starting. These figures cast more shame on the state of the NHS bequeathed by the Tories than the situation now in 2007.