Cancer care on the NHS lags behind that in many other developed countries because Labour wasted billions of pounds on PFI schemes, bureaucracy and inflated salaries for managers.A report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has found that, despite record spending on health care, cancer survival rates in Britain are worse than in Slovenia and the Czech Republic.

Survival rates for breast cancer, prostate cancer and cervical cancer were below the average for the 34 developed countries in the study.

Mr Lansley lays the blame for the poor performance on the previous government’s failure to make sure that extra investment in the NHS reached the front line. He claims patient care was ignored in favour of increased salaries and botched computer systems.

Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Mr Lansley says: “Unfortunately this report shows how much work there is to do to deal with Labour’s legacy of neglect and mismanagement of our NHS.

“They hugely increased spending on the Health Service, but wasted much of it on managers, failed IT projects and unsustainable PFI projects.

“They failed to focus on what really matters – patients – which is why we still have some of the worst cancer outcomes amongst comparable countries.”

Under Labour, spending on the NHS trebled, reaching almost £100 billion in 2009, but money for treating cancer still lags behind much of the rest of the world.

A report by the Policy Exchange think tank last year found that England spent around 5.6 per cent of its health care budget on cancer care, compared with 7.7 per cent in France, 9.6 per cent in Germany and 9.2 per cent in America.

In September it emerged that private finance initiatives, introduced by Labour to fund capital projects, have left 60 NHS hospitals on the “brink of financial collapse”. Meanwhile, the pay of NHS chief executives has risen, with typical earnings now more than £150,000.

The OECD figures reveal that the best breast cancer survival rates were in the US, where 89.3 per cent of women were alive five years after being diagnosed. The average across all OECD countries was 83.5 per cent, while in the UK it was 81.3 per cent.

Survival rates for cervical cancer were worse. Norway topped the table with 78.2 per cent still alive after five years, compared with 58 per cent of women in the UK. There were also more hospital admissions for asthma and other lung conditions than the average and infant mortality was higher.

The report also showed that consultations by doctors have fallen, and were below he OECD average in 2009.

Katherine Murphy, the chief executive of the Patients Association, said: “The NHS provides some excellent care but it does fall down on many counts. We know from patients phoning our helpline that the quality of care that they have experienced can be very poor and sometimes it is downright neglectful.

“Rather than trying to tackle the issue of poor care, the Department of Health is demanding that the NHS makes £20 billion of efficiency savings while spending a million pounds a day on a reform plan that doctors, nurses, patients and NHS managers all say risks irrevocably damaging the NHS.”

From:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Cancer-cash-wasted-on-NHS-salaries

About 2,500 doctors and dentists have been targeted by the tax authorities as probable tax dodgers.HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) will send them warning letters in the next few days, telling them to pay within 21 days or face possible prosecution.

The threats are part of the Revenue’s efforts to recover unpaid tax owed by various professions and trades.

People selling on internet marketplaces, and electricians, will be targeted early next year.

As well as doctors and dentists, HMRC has already been paying special attention to the tax affairs of restaurant owners and their staff, plumbers, private tutors and scrap metal dealers, as well as people with money hidden in offshore bank accounts.

Last month, the Revenue added to its list of potential miscreants, announcing it would also be focusing on wealthy people who own homes abroad, as well as commodity traders.

Gary Ashford of the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) said doctors and dentists should not ignore the Revenue’s latest letters.

“HMRC will either ‘make a determination’, which would result in the taxpayer incurring significant additional charges, or refer the case to their criminal investigations department with a view to prosecution,” he said.

“They have offered the carrot of a relatively low penalty rate for doctors to get their affairs in order and 1,500 health professionals took it up, bringing in £10m for the Exchequer.

“Now they are wielding the stick at those who have not come forward,” he said.

Mr Ashford pointed out that the Revenue had been gleaning information from employers of doctors and dentists, such as locum agencies, drug companies and medical insurance firms.

“What we are now seeing is HMRC starting to use that information, to identify who has not notified HMRC of all their tax liabilities,” Mr Ashford pointed out.

Elderly patients are increasingly being kept in hospital beds because there is no one to support them at home, or there are no places available in residential homes, figures indicate.The number of hospital bed days lost to so-called ‘bed blockers’ across NHS hospitals in England has risen by 11 per cent in the past year, official figures show.

The rise comes after years of success in tackling the problem, and illustrates growing pressures on the NHS and social services.

According to Department of Health statistics, the number of hospital bed days lost to bed blockers rose from 115,648 during September and October 2010, to 128,517 in the same two month period this year.

That comes after a sustained period of falls between 2003 and 2009, as a result of concerted ministerial action to tackle the problem.

With the average cost of providing a hospital bed for a day estimated at £255, that means the daily NHS bill for bed blockers has risen from £483,000 to £537,000.

Aside from this economic cost, it also means hospitals cannot admit new patients as quickly, which can delay waiting times for pre-planned operations.

The statistics confirm what many have been fearing for months: that reductions in local authority social care budgets would quickly lead to clogged up hospital wards.

In February Bupa warned that “chronic under-funding” of care home places would lead to an “intolerable” bed-blocking crisis in the long term, costing the NHS millions of pounds a day.

Oliver Thomas, director of UK care homes for Bupa, said last night: “If you slow down the number of people placed in residential care, because you are trying to manage your budgets better, then inevitably people will stay longer in the acute sector.”

Others described the latest figures as a “warning” of worse to come and a “pinch point”.

Jo Webber, of the NHS Confederation, which represents health service authorities, said: “This is a worrying sign of the pressure which is building in the system. Like waiting times, it is a pinch point.”

Last month The Daily Telegraph reported that government funding for nursing homes and home help for pensioners had been cut by almost a fifth, with some councils cutting spending by up to 30 per cent.

At the same time many hospitals are cutting hospital bed numbers, by up to 10 per cent, in part to meet tough efficiency saving targets.

Dr Ian Donald, of the British Geriatrics Society, said: “The trouble is hospitals operate on such tight margins. Even small delays can cause problems.”

The term ‘bed blocker’ tends to imply the patient is the cause of the problem, but Dr Donald emphasised that was not the case.

“Delayed discharges are not just statistics, but individual patients who are frail and vulnerable. “To them and their families it can feel like they are stuck and lost in the system,” he said.

The new figures follow the introduction in August 2010 of a new monthly reporting system for counting ‘delayed discharges’ – incidents when an otherwise healthy patient is kept in due to lack of community care facilities – brought in due to concerns over quality of data.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Bed-blocking-rise-of-11pc-in-last-year

NHS weight loss programmes are more expensive and less effective than WeightWatchers, a study has found.Diet programmes such as Weight Watchers, Slimming World and Rosemary Conley are cheaper and far more effective than those run by the NHS’s nanny state, according to new research.

Dieters lost more weight and kept it off for longer by joining a slimming club than after having counselling from specially trained staff in GP surgeries or pharmacies, it was found.

Experts said money would be better spent on encouraging people to attend classes run by commercial companies.

The study, Comparison of range of commercial or primary care led weight reduction programmes with minimal intervention control for weight loss in obesity is published online in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), involved 740 obese or overweight men and women recruited from one NHS trust in Birmingham.

They were divided into six groups and attended either Weight Watchers, Slimming World, Rosemary Conley, a group-based NHS programme run by advisers and dieticians called Size Down, one-to-one counselling sessions in GP surgeries, or one-to-one counselling in pharmacies.

Another group was provided with 12 vouchers for free entrance to a local fitness centre.

At 12 weeks, data was available for 658 of the participants and 522 after one year.

All programmes achieved weight loss at 12 weeks – from an average of 1.37kg in the GP group to 4.43kg in the Weight Watchers group.

But the NHS programmes were found to be no better than the people exercising at a local fitness centre at this point.

At the one year mark, all the programmes except the GP and pharmacy groups had resulted in “significant weight loss”.

However, Weight Watchers was the only programme to achieve significantly greater weight loss than the control group – and was the best attended group.

Compared to the NHS programmes, commercially-run ones meant people typically lost an extra 2.3kg.

The authors, from the University of Birmingham, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and NHS South Birmingham concluded: “Commercially provided weight management services are more effective and cheaper than primary care based services led by specially trained staff, which are ineffective.”

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “Weight management programmes can be very cost-effective and make losing weight easier for some people, but the best way to lose weight will be different for everyone.

“The local NHS must think about which weight management service will work best based on an individual patient’s needs.”

In September, another study conducted in the UK, Germany and Australia showed that a year-long Weight Watchers programme was far more beneficial than helpful doctor’s advice.

That study was published in The Lancet medical journal.

Health workers at a Glasgow hospital are staging a protest later over a 113% increase in parking fees.The monthly cost of a permit for the multi-storey at Glasgow Royal Infirmary (GRI) has risen from £42 to £89.50.

Parking fees at most Scottish hospitals were abolished in 2009 but remained at three sites where car parks were built under Labour’s Private Finance Initiative (PFI) .

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde said a limited number of £25 permits were available for staff who needed cars.

The multi-storey car park, which opened in 2005, is owned by Impreglio Car Parking and managed by Apcoa under contract to the health board.

Approximately 940 subsidised permits are issued with priority given to staff such as consultants who need to travel between different sites.

Other staff can apply for these permits, but demand outstrips availability and not all applicants are successful.

At the time, Scottish Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon urged health boards to limit and reduce the charges until the contracts came to an end.

In September, the issue was raised in the Scottish parliament by Glasgow Kelvin MSP Sandra White.

She was told that the first minister sympathised with the staff, but the Scottish Government was bound by the terms of the PFI agreement signed by the previous Labour administration.

A spokeswoman for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde said: “Unfortunately, as the car park is privately-owned, we do not have any control over any tariff increases that Impreglio choose to make.”

The protest was due to take place at the hospital car park from 13:00.

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15622723

Single women are being offered fertility treatment by almost a fifth of NHS trusts casting doubt on the Government’s family friendly credentials.Women not in relationships are receiving publicly funded IVF despite official guidance that suggests support should go to couples who have been trying without success to have a baby for several years.

Meanwhile in other parts of the country married couples are being denied help in starting a family, forcing them to spend thousands of pounds on private treatment.

It comes after a Labour nanny state law removed the requirement for fertility doctors to consider a child’s need to have a male role model before going ahead with IVF.

Critics say the Government, which David Cameron promised would be “the most family friendly we’ve ever had in this country”, should tackle the postcode lottery of IVF provision and ensure that the needs of children are put first.

Frank Field, the Labour MP who carried out a high-profile review into poverty and life chances last year, said: “It’s clearly wrong that while couples in stable relationships can’t get IVF and in other areas, single women can.

“It’s really important that Government ministers speak up for children who are the ones left out of this. It needs someone in a position of authority to reflect what most taxpayers think.”

The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester who once chaired the ethics committee of Britain’s fertility watchdog, said: “The irony is that at the very time research is showing the need for both parents, we are writing fathers out of the legislation.

“It’s one thing for a mother to find herself a single parent because of tragic circumstances. It’s quite another to plan for a situation where the child comes into the world without having a father or any possibility of having a father.”

Most local health authorities stipulate that couples must have been in a relationship for two or three years to qualify for IVF treatment.

That requirement is based on guidance issued in 2004 by the National Institute for Curbing Expenditure (Nice), the NHS rationing body,.

It states: “Couples in which the woman is aged 23–39 years at the time of treatment and who have an identified cause for their fertility problems … or who have infertility of at least three years’ duration, should be offered up to three stimulated cycles of in vitro fertilisation treatment.”

The document does note that the guidelines do not address social criteria “for example, whether it is single women or same-sex couples who are seeking treatment”.

However the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 removed the reference to “the need for a father” when considering the welfare of the child when considering fertility treatment, replacing it with “the need for supportive parenting”.

Gareth Johnson MP, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Group on Infertility, said that trusts offering the service to single women were going against one of the guiding principles of IVF, “that you are treating an infertile couple, not an infertile individual”.

Mr Johnson, the Conservative MP for Dartford, said: “Speaking in a personal capacity, if you are going for IVF, you are trying to create a baby, so there should be some evidence of a stable background, which you would expect to be a couple.”

Earlier this year he led an APPG report that found startling differences between what health authorities offered in terms of IVF.

It found three-quarters of Primary Care Trusts were failing to offer three cycles of IVF, as stipulated by Nice. Each cycle comprises a woman’s ovaries being stimulated to produce eggs, which are then fertilised in vitro and implanted in the womb. Spare eggs should be frozen for use if the first attempt fails.

The report found five trusts offered no IVF at all – Warrington, West Sussex, Stockport, North Staffordshire and North Yorkshire and York. Since then, NHS West Sussex has decided to start funding IVF again.

Many trusts have also started putting in place further barriers to IVF funding – for example demanding obese women lose weight – in part to limit demand as health budgets tighten.

Against a background of increasingly scarce provision, as the NHS tries to save £20billion by 2015, Mr Johnson said the decision to offer IVF to single women was misplaced.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Single-women-being-offered-IVF-on-the-NHS

The first new skin cancer treatment since the 1970s has been rejected by the NHS’s rationing body, in a decision branded a “death sentence” for patients.Clinical trials had shown that half of those who were given the drug were still alive a year later, twice as many as those given an alternative treatment.

The drug, called ipilimumab, works by teaching the immune system how to tackle melanomas and was widely seen as an important advance on “old-fashioned” chemotherapy.

But in draft guidance NICE- the National Institute for Curbing Expenditure has recommended that NHS trusts do not prescribe the treatment, because it costs about £80,000 per patient and because it had doubts over the research data.

It means that unless the manufacturer cuts the price, the only way that the growing number of advanced melanoma sufferers can access the drug is by applying to the Government’s Cancer Drugs Fund.

The decision comes after a provocative academic report claimed that some expensive cancer drugs are “futile” as they cost a lot and cause toxic side-effects yet only give dying patients a few more weeks to live.

In a joint statement, the support group Factor 50 and charity SKCIN said: “The breakthrough that patients and clinicians throughout the UK have been waiting for has arrived in the form of this drug.”

“Standard treatments that have been available since the 1970s are ineffective and to deny this drug to patients, many of whom are young and with very young families, has undoubtedly handed them down a death sentence.”

“To have come so close to a breakthrough and to be told no at this stage is truly devastating.”

Dr Pippa Corrie, Consultant Medical Oncologist at Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, added: “Licensing of this drug for use in the UK marked a step change in melanoma patient care, and whilst the Nice decision is predictable, it is disappointing.

“It is essential that we all work to avoid any negative impact on facilitating patient access to this drug. Our patients have waited too long already.”

Rates of skin cancer are rising faster than any other type of the disease in Britain and it affects teenagers and young adults more than any other group.

Almost 12,000 people now develop the most serious kind, malignant melanoma, every year and about 2,000 will die after it spreads across the body.

For the past 30 years the only treatment has been a type of chemotherapy called dacarbazine which is not seen as particularly effective and leaves patients tired and at greater risk of infection.

The new treatment, marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb as Yervoy, is taken in just four injections, one every three weeks and is said to have fewer side-effects.

In a trial on patients who had undergone prior therapy for skin cancer, 46 per cent who took the new drug were still alive after a year compared with 25 per cent who had not taken it.

In addition, 24 per cent were still alive at two years compared with 14 per cent of those who did not take the drug, and the median survival was 10.1 months compared with 6.4 months among those who did not take it.

But Nice, which assesses whether or not new treatments should be widely available on the NHS in England and Wales, has recommended against its use.

Sir Andrew Dillon, its chief executive, said: “We need to be sure that new treatments provide sufficient benefits to patients to justify the significant cost the NHS is being asked to pay.”

He said the evidence showed that ipilimumab was only effective for a “small percentage” of patients, it was not clear how long its effects last, and that it was linked to “a number of adverse reactions”.

“The Committee considered all these factors and concluded that, on the basis of the evidence provided so far, ipilimumab could not be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources.”

But he added that the decision is open to public consultation while the manufacturer can offer to cut the cost.

Amadou Diarra, European Vice President and General Manager at Bristol-Myers Squibb UK, said: “We are fully committed to demonstrating that Yervoy represents real value for money to the NHS, and we will be submitting further evidence the hope that Nice will reconsider this decision so that all patients with metastatic melanoma can access this potentially life-extending treatment.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Death-sentence-as-NHS-watchdog-rejects-skin-cancer-drug

A drug that can give advanced prostate cancer sufferers an extra two months to live has been rejected by the NHS’s rationing body.The National Institute for Curbing Expenditure (Nice) said that the medicine, called cabazitaxel, was not a cost-effective treatment for men who have already undergone hormone therapy.

It said that although the drug did extend survival for patients with advanced prostate cancer, it was “concerned” about the side-effects experienced in clinical trials and that at an average cost of £22,000 per patient it was too expensive.

The move comes after an important study commissioned by The Lancet Oncology warned that the cost of cancer care is becoming unsustainable in developed countries, and that it makes no sense to keep giving “toxic” and costly drugs to patients with just a few weeks to live.

Sir Andrew Dillon, the chief executive of Nice, said: “The committee concluded that cabazitaxel would not be a cost effective use of limited NHS resources.”

But Owen Sharp, chief executive of the Prostate Cancer Charity, said: “Cabazitaxel is an important treatment, only recently licensed for use here in the UK, which can help to extend the lives of men in the final stages of prostate cancer for whom existing treatments have stopped working.

“These men currently have very few treatment options open to them when their cancer reaches this advanced stage. Increasing the number of treatments that may extend the lives of these men and allow them to spend precious time with their families is essential.”

Prostate cancer is the most common form of the disease among British men, with 37,000 cases diagnosed every year.

Some men live for years with slow-growing tumours, but in other cases it develops aggressively and kills after spreading to other organs.

Treatments often attempt to reduce the production of testosterone, a hormone that fuels the growth of the tumours, but patients can develop resistance to this type of therapy.

In clinical trials, men with advanced prostate cancer who were given cabazitaxel in combination with prednisone, a drug that suppresses the immune system, lived for an extra 10 weeks.

But Nice said there was “uncertainty” about the new drug’s effect on patients’ hearts and livers, and it did not meet its criteria for being considered as an end-of-life drug worthy of additional funding.

It means that anyone who hopes to obtain the new type of chemotherapy on the NHS must make an individual application through the Cancer Drugs Fund.

Nice is still assessing the value of a daily pill that can treat advanced prostate cancer, called abiraterone acetate, which is believed to have kept the Lockerbie bomber alive longer than expected.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/NHS-rationing-body-rejects-prostate-cancer-drug

Overseas patients owe the NHS almost £60 million in unpaid medical bills, with foreign governments among those with the biggest debts.The figures, which cover the past six years, show an increase in the number of visitors leaving the country without paying for treatment.

Embassies and foreign governments have run up debts of nearly £6 million at two London hospitals after failing to pay for non-emergency treatment, according to figures released under the Freedom of Information Act.

More than £4 million is owed to Great Ormond Street children’s hospital by Middle Eastern governments that arrange for children to have treatments not available in their own countries.

While much of the debt is still being chased, more than half has been abandoned or written off.

Free NHS hospital treatment is available to British residents. Overseas patients are charged for the full cost of any treatment they receive unless a specific exemption applies.

Urgent treatment is always available to overseas visitors, regardless of their residence status or ability to pay, but non-urgent treatment should not go ahead without the NHS first receiving payment.

In 2009, West Middlesex University Hospital, in west London, became the first to tell foreign patients they must pay in advance.

The figures reveal that hospitals threatened with closures over mounting debts have written off some of the highest amounts. Imperial College trust, which is £100 million in debt and in the process of making major cuts, is owed £2.5 million and has written off a further £2 million.

The trust for Chase Farm hospital, in north London, which received a bail-out from the Challenged Trust Board and is being forced to close its A&E department, has a foreign debt of £2.5 million.

The Government recently introduced a policy to deny new visas to tourists with outstanding NHS payments.

The burden on the taxpayer is expected to increase next year with one million extra visitors and foreign dignitaries attending the Olympics in London.

Separate figures show that European governments owe £38.5 million to Britain under the system that allows visitors free emergency treatment on the NHS.

Statistics released in a Parliamentary written question show that almost half of the total owed in the European Health Insurance Card scheme, £17.2 million, is due from Ireland.

Katherine Murphy, chief executive of the Patients Association, said: “At a time when the NHS needs to make £20 billion of savings by 2014, why are managers at hospitals not desperately chasing these unpaid bills? Why are we writing off this money and throwing it down the drain when it could be used to fund front line services and help patients?”

Simon Burns, a health minister, said: “Hospitals must take every reasonable measure to recover any debts from overseas patients. The NHS has a duty to anyone whose life or long-term health is at immediate risk, but we cannot afford to become an international health service, providing free treatment for all.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Overseas-patients-owe-health-service-60m

Dismantling Labour’s disastrous £12 billion NHS IT programme may cost taxpayers more than keeping it going.Ministers announced on Thursday that they will speed up the scrapping of the National Programme for IT (NPfIT)  after a review concluded “there can be no confidence that the programme has delivered or can be delivered as originally conceived”.

It confirmed earlier reports that the central part of the scheme, allowing NHS staff across England to access any patient’s details, was unworkable while costs had increases and deadlines were missed.

The governance board of the programme will now be scrapped, and local trusts will be given the freedom to develop their own versions of the electronic care record rather than having the rules dictated by Whitehall. A new Cabinet Office oversight committee will monitor future IT investment to ensure money is not wasted.

But many trusts across England have large contracts with private suppliers to supply their care record systems, and their cancellation could leave taxpayers even more out of pocket.

The Department of Health’s own chief information officer, Christine Connelly, told MPs on the Public Accounts Committee in May that a £3bn deal with CSC to deliver systems in the north, midlands and east of England would cost more to get out of than to keep going.

She said: “Potentially, if you ask me about the absolute maximum, we could be exposed to a higher cost than the cost to complete the contract as it stands today.”

A decision will be made on the future of the contract later in the autumn.

However the Cabinet Office’s Major Projects Authority said that some parts of the £12.7bn programme had worked and would be retained, including the NHSmail email system and the Choose and Book process of arranging hospital referrals.

Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said: “Labour’s NHS IT Programme let down the NHS and wasted taxpayers’ money by imposing a top-down IT system on the local NHS, which didn’t fit their needs.

“We will be moving to an innovative new system driven by local decision-making. This is the only way to make sure we get value for money from IT systems that better meet the needs of a modernised NHS.”

Roger Goss, co-director of the pressure group Patient Concern said: “Thank goodness politicians have decided to stop money being poured into a huge bottomless pit. Now we must pray that they don’t sanction pouring it into endless incompatible regional pits.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Dismantling-NHS-computer-scheme-could-cost-more-money