A rise in council tax of between 1 and 2 per cent will be needed to meet the cost, while cuts in adult and childrens’ social care services are an “unwanted but very real possibility”, council chiefs have told The Times.

The warning came as Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, was forced to defend his Personal Care at Home Bill in a two hour appearance before the Commons Health Select Committee. He was questioned repeatedly about concerns surrounding the Bill reported by The Times, including its impact on care and clinical research budgets.

Critics believe that the costs calculated by the labour Government are a significant underestimate and care experts have attacked the policy for disrupting elderly care strategies and being little more than an attempt at eye catching electioneering.

The draft Bill, set out in the Queen’s Speech in November, was described by Labour peers as an “exocet” on social-care reform and “a demolition job” on budgets, while MPs and care providers have also criticised it for being ill-conceived and uncosted.

In the latest blow to Mr Burnham’s plans, council chiefs have told The Times that the extra costs will force tax rises and service cuts. 

The annual cost of the Bill is put at £670 million, which ministers say will support 400,000 people with the highest needs to stay in their own homes. Of this total, £420 million is to come from existing Department of Health budgets. Local authorities have been told that they must provide the remaining £250 million from efficiency savings. The first year of the scheme, running from October to April 2011, would require £125 million of local authority efficiency savings.

Mr Burnham said that he “fundamentally rejected” the suggestion that the cost calculations were flawed. “The characterisation of an exocet is 100 per cent wrong,” he said.

Pressed on how £60 million of clinical research savings would be made to NHS budgets to help to fund the plans, and which areas would be affected, Mr Burnham said that it had yet to be finally decided, but would not involve frontline services.

Ken Thornber, head of Hampshire County Council and a member of the social care board of the Local Government Association (LGA), said that for councils already making multimillion-pound savings in backroom staff, this could be met only with an increase in council tax.

Mr Thornber added that it could mean up to £20 a year on council tax bills for the 550,000 households in Hampshire.

The funding from the Department of Health would not alleviate pressures on services, he said, because it was covering people who previously would have been cared for by the NHS or in care homes.

Jenny Owen, president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (Adass) and director of adult social care for Essex County Council, said the council estimated that it would need to find £4 million of savings. “If you do not increase council tax by 1 or 2 per cent it will be a reduction in services.”

Andrew Lansley, the Conservative health spokesman, said that the plans were being rushed through for electoral gain. “While in an ideal world we want to give free care to as many elderly people as possible, it is simply not affordable, particularly since we are in the throes of a debt crisis. The reality is that Gordon Brown will only be able to pay for this through cuts to the NHS and higher council taxes.”

On Jan 5th 2010 in the House of Lords Lord Warner (Labour) asked how many (a) acute trusts, (b) mental health trusts, (c) general practitioners, and (d) community services, are using an electronic summary patient record under the NHS National Programme for IT.

Baroness Thornton (Baronesses in Waiting, HM Household; Labour) replied:
As at 16 December 2009, two acute trusts, one mental health trust, 152 general practitioner practices, and additionally three out of hours providers and two walk in centres were using electronic summary care records delivered under the national programme for information technology. No community trusts were doing so.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100105w0012.htm#10010561002177

What a waste of taxpayers money- a grand total of 160 health organisations were using the £12 billion scheme.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-01-05a.64.3&s;=speaker%3A12896#g64.4
Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 5 January 2010, c64W)

According to Wikipedia, Dorothea Glenys Thornton, Baroness Thornton (born 16 October 1952), known as Glenys Thornton, is a Labour and Co-operative member of the House of Lords.

A graduate of the London School of Economics, Thornton was Political Secretary of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society from 1981, joining the public affairs team of the Co-operative Wholesale Society upon their merger in 1985 and working there until 1992. 

She lives in Belsize Park, London, and is married to internet safety expert John Carr. They have two children, George and Ruby.

Baroness Thornton is no stranger to wasting taxpayers money:
She was reported to be claiming £22,000 a year in expenses by saying that her mother’s bungalow in Yorkshire is her main home, amounting to around £130,000 since 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroness_Thornton

On Jan 5th 2010 in the House of Lords Lord Warner (Labour) asked how many (a) acute trusts, (b) mental health trusts, (c) general practitioners, and (d) community services, are using an electronic summary patient record under the NHS National Programme for IT.

Baroness Thornton (Baronesses in Waiting, HM Household; Labour) replied:
As at 16 December 2009, two acute trusts, one mental health trust, 152 general practitioner practices, and additionally three out of hours providers and two walk in centres were using electronic summary care records delivered under the national programme for information technology. No community trusts were doing so.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100105w0012.htm#10010561002177

What a waste of taxpayers money- a grand total of 160 health organisations were using the £12 billion scheme.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-01-05a.64.3&s;=speaker%3A12896#g64.4
Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 5 January 2010, c64W)

According to Wikipedia, Dorothea Glenys Thornton, Baroness Thornton (born 16 October 1952), known as Glenys Thornton, is a Labour and Co-operative member of the House of Lords.

A graduate of the London School of Economics, Thornton was Political Secretary of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society from 1981, joining the public affairs team of the Co-operative Wholesale Society upon their merger in 1985 and working there until 1992. 

She lives in Belsize Park, London, and is married to internet safety expert John Carr. They have two children, George and Ruby.

Baroness Thornton is no stranger to wasting taxpayers money:
She was reported to be claiming £22,000 a year in expenses by saying that her mother’s bungalow in Yorkshire is her main home, amounting to around £130,000 since 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroness_Thornton

Andrew Lansley, shadow health secretary, cited examples of NHS Trusts paying “hugely inflated” salaries to temporary workers for covering shifts.

A nurse in Yeovil was paid £146 an hour, another in Derby £136 an hour, and an IT manager in Whittington received £400 an hour.

The freedom of information disclosures also show that an agency doctor in King’s Lynn was paid £375 an hour – equivalent to an annual salary of £660,000. Mr Lansley said that such payments divert funds from the front line and prove that Labour’s attempts to control health agency expenditure are failing.

The NHS spent £1.25bn on temps in 2008-09, according to figures provided by the department of health to the Tories. This was a sharp increase on the £831m spent the previous year and the £785m in 2006-07.

But it is below the £1.4bn bill that agencies presented to the NHS in both 2002-03 and 2003-04, when agencies accounted for 5.5 per cent of the payroll.

Patricia Hewitt, former health secretary, described agency pay as “massively expensive” and called for hospitals to use permanent staff instead.

About 130,000 workers in the health service are not permanent staff.

While most trusts did not disclose fees paid to agencies, some of them received as much as 43 per cent of each payment, according to the Tories. The typical agency fee, among the 33 trusts that replied in detail, was 26 per cent.

Trusts and local authorities have been urged to pool resources to improve their purchasing power.

A report last year by Leeds university and the Economic and Social Research Council found that, although fees had dropped in recent years, temps were still generally more expensive than permanent staff.

The presence of temps, while “unavoidable”, could also damage the morale of permanent staff because they were often given easier tasks.

But the National Audit Office said last year that agency workers could be used as a way for the NHS to control costs. Temps could be cheaper because they did not receive the same training and perks as permanent staff.

Bureaucracy, low recruitment rates and the slow uptake of new drugs are pushing pharmaceutical companies to undertake more research in other countries in Europe and North America, as well as increasingly in low cost developing nations.

In spite of efforts by the labour government to make trials cheaper, faster and easier to conduct, the UK’s disproportionately strong historic role in the development of medicines is being undermined. 

The latest figures from the Department of Health show the number of mid-stage, late-stage and post-approval clinical trials fell from 728 in 2008 to 470 this year, its lowest level in the past decade. Early-stage trials fell to 210, the lowest in five years.

The data were corroborated by figures provided to the Financial Times by Quintiles, one of the world’s leading clinical research organisations, which conducts trials for most significant drug companies. These show that the number of patients recruited into mid and late-stage clinical trials in the UK stagnated at 782 last year compared with 749 in 1999. 

Dennis Gillings, chief executive of Quintiles, which has continued to expand early-stage clinical trials in the UK, said: “We would be happy to invest more in the UK, but there’s a feeling that the NHS has a negative attitude towards industry and a reluctance to pay for drugs.”

The statistics come in spite of rising patient recruitment in some areas, including cancer trials, and a broader range of efforts in conjunction with industry to streamline approvals, reduce costs and encourage National Health Service doctors to participate in research.

The findings come as researchers lead calls for reforms to the EU’s clinical trials directive. A consultation on revising the legislation closes in early January. But Kent Woods, head of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the UK body that scrutinises new drugs, said only minor modifications were required to distinguish standards for high-risk and low-risk trials.

The new approach by the NHS means that doctors will tell patients their percentage chance of having cancer, based on factors like their age, weight and symptoms such as bleeding or sudden weight loss.

Professor Mike Richards, the government’s cancer tsar, who unveiled the move in an interview with the Guardian, said that within five years every GP in England should be using the software as part of a new drive to reduce the huge toll of avoidable cancer deaths.

Computer-assisted cancer risk assessment will help GPs estimate whether a patient’s symptoms could indicate the presence of a cancer and decide whether they needed to refer them for urgent tests in hospital, Richards said.

The computer would assess a patient’s age, weight and symptoms – such as rectal bleeding and constant fatigue – and if the risk were above a certain level, the person would be referred to hospital for urgent exploratory tests within two weeks.

Cancer is the UK’s biggest killer after heart disease and strokes. Every year 293,000 people are diagnosed with cancer, and about 155,000 die of it. GPs are vital because they spot the signs of cancer in 90% of patients, with screening picking up the other 10%. But a typical GP sees only eight or nine cases of cancer a year.

Britain is far worse than many European countries at diagnosing cancer early, when it is more likely to be treatable and the patient has a much better chance of surviving. That is partly because some patients who develop symptoms delay seeking help, but also because GPs sometimes fail to correctly identify signs of cancer.

Support technology is needed because of that poor record, the difficulty of diagnosing cancer and the sheer number of other ailments that GPs have to know about, Richards said.

There are more than 200 forms of cancer, and many of their symptoms are the same as for a range of other, often less serious, conditions. Computers could help doctors get it right more often when deciding whether to investigate a patient further, discharge them or refer them to hospital.

“This is helping GPs because none of us can retain this sort of information [about cancer symptoms] and having to retain it for bowel cancer, lung cancer and ovarian cancer, as well as for heart disease, it would take a remarkable human brain to be able to do that, so why not get computers to support it?” said Richards.

“The benefit of this will be that GPs will know who should be investigated and who shouldn’t. It will also help patients to know that whether they are being reassured, or referred, or getting a test, that is the right thing to do.”

Richards said the system would mean “better decision-making by GPs, leading also to earlier diagnosis of cancer patients”.

Professor Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, welcomed the move. “The future of medicine will be that GPs will be using more and more computer-aided diagnostic tools for more and more conditions, and ultimately in years to come genetic information will be part of that,” he said.

“GPs will welcome this because it will make their diagnoses quicker and better. Over time this will save lives.”

Family doctors rather than computers will continue to make the key judgments, even after software has become routine in surgeries, Richards emphasised.

“The GP will always have the final say. If he wants to refer a patient to hospital, he will always have the right to do so,” he said.

England is understood to be the first country in the world to move to introduce such technology, according to the Department of Health. A number of GP practices across the country will take part in a pilot programme to assess the effectiveness of assisted cancer risk assessment, starting in the spring.

GPs have recently begun using similar software to help them assess a patient’s risk of developing cardiovascular disease. It analyses blood pressure, family history, cholesterol, smoking history and current symptoms before producing an odds ratio.

The plan to extend the approach to cancer is underpinned by a series of recent DH-funded research studies by Dr Willie Hamilton, an Exeter GP and expert in cancer diagnosis at Bristol University. Richards said the tests had shown, for example, that a man aged over 40 who develops diarrhoea has less than a 1% chance of that indicating bowel cancer, but two visits to the GP with the same symptom produce a 1.5% risk. This rises to 3.4% if there is a combination of diarrhoea and rectal bleeding and 6.8% if he visits his GP twice with rectal bleeding.

Sarah Woolnough, head of policy at Cancer Research UK, said: “We welcome any initiative that encourages the earlier diagnosis of cancer. Late diagnosis is the reason behind thousands of avoidable cancer deaths every year so it has to be a huge priority to make every effort to diagnose cancer earlier. We need to think imaginatively and innovatively about how we encourage earlier diagnosis, so initiatives like this are very promising for the future.”

From:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/dec/29/cancer-diagnosis-computer-programme

Health Direct questions the sanity of this new spin.

Firstly, labour has an appalling track record on IT projects- the failed NHS records £12 billion NPfIT project is a prime example.

Secondly, this scheme undermines GPs, doctors and health professionals in general. If this new technology really does work- there will be a logic to save money by sacking them all.

Is this yet another example of hope over adversity. Having utterly failed UK patients with some of the worst cancer rates in europe over the past 13 years- is this a dying labour spin clutching at a straw?

The health secretary pledged a “fairer” system for relatives and friends of people admitted to hospital in England.

He is looking at whether to abolish fees for all in-patients’ visitors – or just those admitted for a long stay.

For out-patients he will look at free parking, or a cap on charges, for those who need to make regular appointments.

Parking is already free at most hospitals in Scotland and Wales and for certain priority groups of patients in Northern Ireland. Although all PFI hospitals and clinic still charge for car parking.

Mr Burnham announced in September he wanted to phase out over three years charges at hospitals in England for patients who are admitted.

But the eight-week consultation – which runs until 23 February – will also look at charges for out-patients who have to make regular appointments – like cancer patients with regular chemotherapy sessions.

Mr Burnham told the BBC: “I think the time has come for a fairer, more consistent approach to parking across the NHS. Frankly I think it’s confusing at present, there are a wide variety of parking schemes.”

He added it had “caused great resentment” but the government had to ensure that the costs of running secure car parks were covered.

NHS trusts have argued that some parking charges are necessary to ensure health funds are not diverted towards managing and maintaining car parks.

Mr Burnham said: “We want to have the consultation so we get the balance right, that we don’t ask the NHS to do something at a time when there is pressure on its finances that it can’t afford. But I believe what we’re proposing is affordable.”

When Mr Burnham announced plans to phase out charges for in-patients in September, Macmillan Cancer Support raised concerns that it would not apply to people with cancer having treatment as out-patients.

The charity’s head of campaigns, Mike Hobday, told the BBC: “MacMillan is really pleased that this consultation could mean free parking for cancer patients who have to go to hospital on average 53 times during the course of their treatment.

“What we need of course is for all political parties to commit to abolishing this unnecessary tax.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8433395.stm

In the UK, hospital acquired infections (HAI) such as MRSA and clostridium difficile affect 300,000 patients each year and cause about 5,000 deaths- nearly double the number of people killed in road accidents.

The problem is worse in the US, where HAIs are estimated to be one of the top 10 causes of death, claiming close to 100,000 lives every year.

And the costs are mounting. In the US, government studies estimate that the extra cost of treating a patient with HAI averages almost $9,000 (£5,600).

UK companies are among the leaders in the fight against superbugs but they say that they are encountering problems in getting their products adopted by UK hospitals. They complain that hospital managers lack accountability for deaths relating to HAIs.

In November, a report by the Department of Health criticised the NHS for not achieving “measurable reductions” in HAIs outside of MRSA and C.difficile.

“The heart of the problem is that whatever DoH says or decrees, it doesn’t necessarily impact hospitals,” says Nick Adams, chief executive of Bioquell, the decontamination technology provider. “In the US, a hospital can be sued and that’s a big deal because they’re desperate to keep it out of the press, so they’ll settle. In the UK, hospitals pass the issue very quickly on to the NHS litigation board, so it’s not the hospital’s problem.”

Synergy Health is another company that produces decontamination technology. It has concentrated its sales efforts in Asia and Europe.

One of Synergy’s decontamination products uses a disinfectant technology produced by another company, Byotrol, that has been tested by the NHS in an 11-month study. The Byotrol technology was deployed against a bleach-based product currently used by the NHS.

Despite positive results showing superior effectiveness and lower side effects, the product has not been taken up, even by the Manchester Royal Infirmary where it was tested.

Richard Steeves, Synergy’s chief executive, says that his group is making more sales to countries where hospitals are encouraged to innovate, such as in the Netherlands, where “hospitals are competing for patients”.

Although there is state-funded national insurance for health care in the Netherlands, hospitals compete with each other to provide services for a number of private insurers.

Most UK hospitals are run by the NHS, and Dr Steeves points out that many of the UK’s private hospitals are owned by private equity, and that there is financial pressure to reduce costs.

However, there are those in the sector that say that innovation by UK companies is a direct result of the “laissez faire” environment.

Paul Swinney is chief executive of Tristel, which produces a chlorine dioxide-based disinfectant that treats everything from salads in supermarkets to surgical instruments and surfaces.

Its product is used throughout the UK, which Mr Swinney says is “de facto approval”. Moreover, he says, companies here do not have to pass the expensive regulatory procedure of the US Food and Drugs Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency.

From:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f989ee86-f405-11de-ac55-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

Ministers are imposing new rules on NHS charities requiring all donations — including those to specialist children and cancer units, local fundraising campaigns, teaching hospitals and local community trusts — to be listed on a hospital’s balance sheet.

The Charities Commission says that this is “wholly inappropriate” because combining the trust and charity accounts will jeopardise the charity’s autonomy and discourage donations. 

Charities also fear that the change, due to come into effect in April, will be used as a smokescreen to hide cuts in health spending, with ministers reducing funds for organisations such as children’s hospitals that have successful charitable arms.

Jenny Willott, a Cabinet Office spokeswoman for the Liberal Democrats, said: “This could lead to hundreds of millions of pounds of charitable donations being effectively nationalised under the NHS.

“The Government has no right to get its hands on any charitable NHS funds. People make donations on the understanding that it is up to charities to decide how to spend it, not ministers.”

A source at a leading hospital said that the rule change appeared entirely unreasonable and risked creating unnecessary budgetary pressures and distorted disparities between hospitals with different levels of fundraising ability.

Ministers were banned from counting charitable donations towards the central NHS budget under the original legislation that created the NHS in 1948.

But this looks set to be reversed after the Treasury agreed to implement International Accounting Standard (IAS) 27. Now all NHS Trusts whose trustees have the “power to control” their charitable arm look likely to be forced to consolidate both sets of accounts in one. Estimates of the number of NHS charities affected vary between 30 and 300 organisations.

From:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6969955.ece