I Think I Preferred You When You Were Denying People Cancer Drugs, Frankly…

Fast-food chains could be told to cut the size of portions of chips, the chairman of the NHS watchdog says.

Shouldn’t the NHS watchdog have far more important things to concern itself with, given the poor performance of so many of its hospitals?

Sir Michael Rawlins said the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) may produce guidelines to recommend smaller servings to help combat obesity.

Well, that’s fine, then. Guidelines can be ignored, can’t they?

Sir Michael, who leaves Nice next year to become president of the Royal Society of Medicine, said: ‘Someone had actually reduced the number of chips in a standard portion.

‘Nobody noticed, which is quite interesting. Nice could suggest it.

‘It could be a recommendation. When it comes to obesity we have to do more to help people reduce their intake of food.

'It is not a single bullet but a whole variety of things that we need to do to help people and help communities.’

I really don’t think we need that kind of ‘help’. I’m pretty sure we don’t need to pay you to come up with it, either…

The watchdog is drawing up guidelines to help councils and health trusts tackle obesity.

This is expected to be published in November 2012 following public consultation.

What sort of public consultation?

The sort where the public point out what useless, counter-productive nannying claptrap you’ve come up with, and you then go ahead regardless?

The details are unlikely to include specific advice telling fast-food chains and restaurants to cut chip portions.

However, Sir Michael indicated that in future the watchdog could suggest such measures.

Suggest away. I’m sure everyone will feel free to treat your suggestions with all the attention they really deserve.

None.

This ‘Choice’ Thing Is Damned Inconvenient…

Health chiefs hope to stop Basildon and Thurrock heart patients seeking expensive treatment in London as they try to save £120million over the next five years.

South West Essex Primary Care Trust says it is having to spend millions of pounds more than necessary, because too many cardiac patients from the area are seeking treatment in the capital, where it costs 30 per cent more for treatment than locally.

Now, why would they do that? Are there no facilities at Basildon Hospital, perhaps?

This is despite the £60million Cardiothoracic Centre at Basildon Hospital being open for three years.

Oh, so that's not the problem then.

Since the Government introduced a choice system two years ago, NHS patients have the right to be treated anywhere in the country.

However, the trust believes it should be able to force patients to get treatment at Basildon.

Hmmm, now, why would they need to do this? Why the need to coerce their attendance?

After all, if choice is such a good thing, then surely they can find some way to tempt patients back? Maybe the comments will give us a clue:

perini, Leigh on Sea says...

“We are reminding our GPs, consultants and nurses to ensure their patients are fully informed about the first-class specialist services available much closer to home.'

So that'll be the high death rate, the CDiff and Legionnaires disease then! Is it any wonder people want to go to London??

Oh. Good point.

What Basildon needs to do is stop killing its patients.

Quangoes of the week

From AOLNews:

Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo will announce the new Alcohol Improvement Programme at the National Alcohol Conference in Nottingham. It is hoped the £6 million* measures will help reduce alcohol-related harm.

They include establishing regional alcohol managers, pulling together local information, and increasing access to specialist treatments. Twenty of the most deprived primary care trusts (PCTs) in the country will share £3 million of the funding...

Another £2.7 million will be spent on regional alcohol managers and £450,000 will go to the National Support Team.

An extra £1 million will fund a new Alcohol Learning Centre.

Via The Fat Bigot, who sumarises thusly: "Perhaps £1million out of the 6 will actually go directly into something that might improve patient care, the rest will be spent generating and circulating paper. What better example do we need of the futility and wastefulness of government-led, top-down management of a service?"

* Maybe they'll fund this from the 10p tax on plastic bags that they are thinking of introducing in Wales? See previous post.

"Smoking costs the NHS billions"

The bansturbators are at it again.

FFS, the NHS is a taxpayer funded public body. So what they are really saying is "Smoking costs the taxpayer billions". If that figure of £2.7 billion for the 'cost' of treating smoking-related illnesses is correct*, let's compare it with the taxes that smokers pay;

1. Let's kick off with £9 billion tobacco duties, stick on £1.5 billion for the VAT on top, makes £10.5 billion.

2. We pay for smoking out of our net income, taxable at around 30%, so before we can buy our smokes, we've paid another £4.5 billion in income tax/National Insurance.

3. Add to this the fact that smokers live ten years less than non-smokers, that reduces the number of pensioners by a 15 per cent or so, reducing the cost to the taxpayer by a further £12 billion odd.

Tot that lot up, and you'll find that smokers save other taxpayers about £27 billion per annum. Is it too much to ask that ten per cent of that is spent on treatment?

The much quoted ASH are of course yet another quango - they received a cool £320,400 from the Dept of Health and The Wales Assembly Government (see page 15 of the 2007 accounts), which is more than half their income. And is probably included in the £2.7 billion figure.

* And doesn't get revised up by a factor of four, like they did with alcohol related NHS admissions.

NHS Fuckwittery (10)

Back in May, they came up with some Big Scary Numbers, claiming that 200,000 NHS admissions a year were alcohol-related.

Hmm. Not scary enough, obviously. So they've now revised that up to 800,000 admissions a year.

But despite this, they admit that only "£2billion of NHS money is spent every year treating patients with alcohol-related diseases", which is no higher than the guesstimate in my previous post, which is in turn only 2% of overall NHS cost and a small fraction of alcohol duty revenues. And it's not "NHS money" FFS, it's taxpayers' money.

The most outrageous claim is that "six per cent of all NHS admissions are in some way caused by drink". So what? Seeing as half of us are drunk for a couple of hours a day, I'd say this is pretty much par for the course.

NHS Fuckwittery (9)

Shock! Horror!

Under the heading "Hospital alcohol admissions soar" comes this factoid: Alcohol was the main or secondary cause of 207,800 NHS admissions in 2006/7, compared to 93,500 in 1995/96.

Let's crunch those numbers:
1. Total NHS admissions approx. 10 million per annum.
2. Total spending on NHS in 2006-07 = £82 billion.
3. £82 billion ÷ 10 million x 207,800 = £1.7 billion* (assuming that average cost of an 'alcohol related admission' is the same as the average cost of all admissions)
4. Total alcohol duties collected in 2006-07 = £8 billion (from Tab C4), plus 50% for VAT = £12 billion.

So I think this is the usual BBC-Nulab alliance softening us up for yet more bansturbation. Wouldn't a more appropriate headline have been something like "Nulab drives nation to drink"?

* The Institute of Alcohol Studies reported that the cost was £1.7 bn back in 2004 (see page 8 of this), so this looks about right. Yes, there is such an Institute! All I can say is, I have been studying the effects of alcohol very closely for over a quarter of a century, and I am still none the wiser, heck knows what sort of breakthrough they're hoping for.

Fun with numbers

Remittance Man has produced a statistical tour de force, concluding that if every woman in the UK stopped drinking it would postpone 1,000 deaths a year.