The long-awaited green paper on social care in England will finally be published this summer. But despite a royal commission, multiple independent reviews, and social care green and white papers over the last two decades, pledges to address problems in the system have become politically toxic and the issue has been repeatedly kicked into the long grass.
At the Nuffield Trust, we have been looking into Japan’s long-term care system to discover how the country managed to transition from a setup of highly variable and largely unaffordable care in the 1990s to a universal care system supporting nearly 6 million people. Although the context is different, Japan can teach us valuable lessons about implementing change with widespread public support.
Source: Transparent and fair: what England can learn from Japan’s social care reform | Natasha Curry | Social Care Network | The Guardian
None of the major political parties is pledging to spend enough money on the NHS in England to close its funding gap, cope with increased demand and sustain
Source: Party manifestos have not pledged enough funding for the NHS warns Nuffield Trust | Care Industry News
This local government finance settlement represents a missed opportunity to set out a social care long-term strategy on sustainable funding
Source: Government has not addressed the social care crisis as elderly and vulnerable left to fend for themselves | Care Industry News
Commenting on the Combined Performance Summary for September published this morning by NHS England, Nuffield Trust Director of Research Professor John Appleby
Source: 33% increase in delayed transfers from hospital as social care faces £1.9bn funding gap | Care Industry News
Press release from Nuffield Trust The Report What’s behind the A&E ‘crisis’?
‘…‘Disproportionate’ emphasis on A&E target not in patients’ interest, say Nuffield Trust
Original post from The Health Foundation
‘………..Discussion of the forthcoming UK general election is dominated by military language: battle lines have been drawn, salvoes have been fired, skirmishes are underway. So it seems appropriate to suggest that the political arms race over the NHS has now well and truly begun.
The campaign promises on the NHS we’ve heard so far – and doubtless also the promises we’ll hear between now and 7 May – essentially split into two categories. First are commitments about resources, ie pledges to either provide additional funding or make existing budgets go further by cutting perceived waste (NHS managers will be wearily familiar with this terrain). Second are commitments about setting priorities for how the NHS will use those resources, such as extending GP opening hours, speeding up cancer diagnostics, improving access to mental health services, and so on.
The basic purpose of that second set of commitments is essentially to convince the public that the political party making them has the right plan for the NHS. But recent polling suggests only 16% of the public generally trust the political class to tell the truth, whereas 90% of people trust doctors to do likewise. So why do politicians continue to compete over who has the right priorities for the NHS, if the public doesn’t really trust any of them? ………….’