Hitler, Mussolini, Trump and Rhetorical and Political Inconsistency


Beastrabban\'s Weblog

A number of media commenters have pointed out the inconsistencies and contradiction in Donald Trump’s speeches as he tries to drum up support for his presidential campaign. Kyle Kulinski over at Secular Talk, for example, has pointed out how Trump has argued for separate, and opposite positions on the Middle East, healthcare and the economy. For example, on the Middle East he has at one moment declared that America should go in much harder to carpet bomb whole cities, and torture and kill not just terrorists, but also their families. At other moments, sometimes just after he has argued passionately for the preceding policy, he has completely reversed his position. Instead of renewing America’s campaign in the Middle East, he has argued instead that America should not get involved, and instead leave Vladimir Putin to sort out ISIS.

His position on healthcare is similarly muddled. At one point he appeared…

View original post 627 more words

The Young Turks Examine Trump’s Alternative to Obamacare; and How It’ll Hurt the Poor


Beastrabban\'s Weblog

Donald Trump has been loudly proclaiming throughout his campaign that he’ll repeal Obamacare and replace it with his new, improved system. In this clip The Young Turks’ Cenk Uygur, John Iadarola and Jimmy Dore go through his proposals to show how some of his ideas, which superficially sound good, will leave for the poor and long-term sick much worse off.

First off, Trump intends to repeal the mandate obliging the insurance companies to provide insurance for everyone. They note that this is a policy that not even the other Republicans wanted to be seen endorsing. Indeed, they were all for the mandate when it was a Republican policy. As soon as it was adopted by Obama, a Democrat, they turned against it. And Trump was just as fickle. They argue that he never in fact knew what the mandate was when he telling everyone that he supported it. When he…

View original post 454 more words

Frontline teams are the key to delivering better value care for patients


Original post from The King’s Fund

‘…………..By Ruth Robertson  Fellow, Health Policy

We need to talk about patients not pounds if we are to engage clinicians in meeting the NHS productivity challenge. That means focusing on providing the best possible health outcomes at the lowest possible cost, rather than a single-minded push to save money.

This is one of the main messages from our new report, Better value in the NHS: the role of changes in clinical practice, and was the main topic of discussion at The King’s Fund conference on better value health care. At that event, Sir Muir Grey put the issue more succinctly by asking the audience to join him in instigating a ban on the word ‘savings’.

Past performance shows we need a new approach. Since the 1980s, NHS productivity – that is outputs (activity) divided by inputs (physical inputs, mainly staff) – has increased by around 1 per cent a year on average. That figure has been higher over the past five years but this has been mainly due to the freeze of NHS wages and real-terms reductions in the tariff price paid for services. These centrally driven measures cannot slice much more from NHS budgets, as demonstrated at the end of last year bythe first pay-related strike action in the NHS for 30 years (we await the NHS reaction to the latest pay deal announced in the budget) and re-emphasised this year, when the majority of NHS providers rejected proposals for the reduced 2015/16 tariff for hospital services. To get anywhere near the 2–3 per cent annual productivity growth required to meet the £22 billion productivity challenge set out in the NHS five year forward view will require clinical teams to find ways to improve the quality of their services and get more value from every pound spent on health.

The link between quality and cost is complex. A large review of the evidence on whether quality-improvement interventions saved money for health care providers found mixed results; some interventions (often those on a small scale) resulted in quality improvements and reduced costs but others (particularly those on a large scale) failed to do so. While this paints a fairly pessimistic picture for those seeking to deliver better value care, looking at what NHS clinical teams are doing on the ground to redesign their services tells a very different story.

In Walsall, commissioners, pharmacists and GPs have improved patient care and saved money by introducing a pharmacist-led repeat-prescription service. The 200+ prescriptions that GPs had to authorise each week are now managed by pharmacists, who – among other things – eliminate duplicate medications, switch patients from branded to chemically identical generic drugs, and address any issues patients have taking their medicines. By reducing over-ordering and wastage this service generated more than £800,000 of savings in 2014/15, a return of £3.54 for every £1 invested. Additionally, medications are better managed, there are fewer prescribing errors and GPs have more time to focus on patient care. Read more about this case study in the full report

At Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust frontline staff have also managed to improve quality and cut costs. They analysed patterns of activity in their acute stroke unit and identified a group of frail older patients who had had severe strokes who consumed the highest proportion of their resources and were having a particularly poor patient experience. They redesigned the care pathway for these patients by adding daily reviews of their care and a range of different treatment options. Within a year, transfers to the stroke unit were happening 12 per cent faster and the average length of stay had fallen by 6 per cent. This allowed 13 acute and 4 rehabilitation beds to be permanently closed and saved an estimated £1,000 per patient. Read more about this case study in the full report

The NICE local practice collection has many more examples like these from different parts of the country and of the health system. Despite their diversity these innovations have a number of things in common:

  • they were driven by frontline teams who know best how to improve their services
  • they managed to improve the care that patients receive and save money
  • they showed results relatively quickly – often within a year.

This leaves us with one obvious question: how can the creativity and success shown in these examples be spread across the country?

There’s no simple answer to that question, but in our report we make a start by outlining an agenda for action. We put clinicians at the top of the pyramid as they must be the powerhouse behind improvement in the NHS. However, action will be needed across the health service to create an environment that gives clinical teams the time and space to transform services. And patients must be involved at every level too, from decisions about their own care to the design of a national quality strategy.

An agenda for action

Better value 13

We need to shift the debate on productivity to focus on delivering better value care for patients. Unless we do, the value-driven clinical community will not engage with the challenge of transforming services in a time of tight budgets – and the NHS cannot meet its current and future challenges without them.

More on this topic

Evolution, revolution or confusion? Competition and privatisation in the NHS


Original post from The Health Foundation

‘……..by Emma Spencelayh

‘Health care and the NHS’ is now the most important issue for voters ahead of the election, with 38% saying it was a very important issue, up from 26% shortly before the last general election.

A key dividing line between the major political parties is the role of competition between providers of NHS-funded care (both NHS and non-NHS) and the extent to which non-NHS providers should play a role in the health system – often described as ‘privatisation’.

The Health Foundation is publishing a series of briefings and blogs in the run-up to the 2015 general election, to inform the ongoing public debate on health care policy. These materials will analyse and discuss key issues raised by political parties and others about health care policy and the NHS.

In this briefing we consider seven key questions relating to the role of competition and the role of non-NHS providers within the NHS. We mainly focus on England because, although the United Kingdom will elect a new parliament and government in May 2015, health has been a devolved matter since the late 1990s and each of the devolved administrations has taken a distinct approach to the NHS.

This briefing draws on material from the Health Foundation’s briefing on NHS finances, which is available at www.health.org.uk/fundingbriefing

Contents

Introduction

1. Did the coalition government introduce competition into the NHS?

2. Did the Health and Social Care Act 2012 increase privatisation?

3. Are NHS commissioners required to put all clinical services out for competitive tender?

4. Does competition improve quality of clinical care?

5. What have the different political parties said?

6. Is the NHS being privatised?

7. What next?

Annex A: The Health and Social Care Act 2012 and its parliamentary passage

References

………….’