I've looked at this numerous times as part of my job. The figure of £300m is just the average cost multiplied by the number of appointments. It's irrelevant if that time isn't spare. We don't have people sat around not working if someone doesn't show. Every clinic is full and lasts the length of the slot. If everyone turns up then there tends to be some over run.10 million missed appointments in Apr 21 - Mar 22.
The value of that is estimated at £300 million in clinical time wasted alone. The value of time spent arranging those appointments, and sending letters and rearranging those appointments is not included.
Spot onI've looked at this numerous times as part of my job. The figure of £300m is just the average cost multiplied by the number of appointments. It's irrelevant if that time isn't spare. We don't have people sat around not working if someone doesn't show. Every clinic is full and lasts the length of the slot. If everyone turns up then there tends to be some over run.
The time sending letters and rearranging appointments again if you are looking at it correctly, as marginal costs, is tiny. We're employing people to do that job and if there were no DNAs we'd be employing the same amount of people so there is some wasted effort but there'd be no cost saving.
There is a huge difference between efficiency, cost saving and utilisation.
Trust me. The problems within the NHS have nothing to do with people not turning up for appointments and everything to do with there not being enough staff to significantly increase capacity throughout the system as well as increasing capacity in the care system to reduce the demand for NHS services.
Even if the £300m figure was close to being accurate it is such a tiny number in the scale of the NHS. It's not even enough to effect rounding to the closest billion on the NHS budget. The only reason it is mentioned is to plant the seed that we should start charging people.
Are you a simpleton?people are dying on waiting lists - it's broken - something needs to be done. People with $$$ will opt for private if their livliehood is threatened anyway
Thanks for that!Are you a simpleton?
hahaha - brilliant!Tolerant?
Do you read newspapers. Do you watch current affairs news programmes. Do you not read some of the many many threads on the running down of the NHS over the past many many years? Do you make your self aware of the progression through parliament of acts designed to run down the NHS
I'll be tolerant if you ask the question having done any research whatsoever, but it's clear with such a simplistic question your either stupid or a shill. Which is it?
Think about why you find this funny.hahaha - brilliant!
Take a break mate.
I don't want to particularly engage with you. You seem very angry and abusive but for the sake of this thread, I will reply to you.Think about why you find this funny.
If you can explain why I'd like to hear it.
Oh! And by the way, those that can pay are paying , it's called NI. Its just the money isn't going where it should. No doubt that will cause you to chuckle too.
I apologise. I feel passionately about the NHS. Access to Health care is the greatest definer of class in an un caring world. My answer to your original question is have a completely separate entity , provide by legally defined amounts measured on anything other than profit.I don't want to particularly engage with you. You seem very angry and abusive but for the sake of this thread, I will reply to you.
I was simply asking for new ideas on how the health service could be funded because as ever, the people at the bottom of the pile are always the first to suffer.
I expressed an opinion that was contrary to yours. It wasn't theoretical - just logical that if you could pay more to support the NHS. maybe you should.
There appears to be no polotical will to REALLY solve the problems in the NHS ether from this lot or the other lot that we will be stuck with next.
I'm not a Cretin or worse - Tory. Just an ordinary bloke as frustrated as you.
If you feel the need to start name calling or projecting your obvious intolerance and anger - this is not the place to do it. This is a football message board where all ideas and views should be tolerated and discussed. You don't seem to be able to do either.
EDIT: What I actually found funny was your response. Talk about OTT - I just wanted to clarify that becuse I didn't want to trivialise the subject as you were suggesting.
It's ok. Apology accepted. We all get hot under the collar about this stuff. I recently saw first hand the state it is in when a very close relative died in their hands.I apologise. I feel passionately about the NHS. Access to Health care is the greatest definer of class in an un caring world. My answer to your original question is have a completely separate entity , provide by legally defined amounts measured on anything other than profit.
I'm sorry I misread your post but I'm really REALLY angry about how we as a country are allowing our states greatest achievement to be destroyed by the the venal monsters that occupy our halls of power.
I didn't use the word Cretin. It's not a term I would use.
Again , sorry for getting OTT but I'm at the
point of exploding about the govt.
It's ok. Apology accepted. We all get hot under the collar about this stuff. I recently saw first hand the state it is in when a very close relative died in their hands.
Good post! Very interesting points. People living longer and new kinds of treatment have definitely changed things since it startedThere are a lot of good points in this thread. I think everyone agrees the NHS is underfunded, but - in the short term - pouring loads more money in is not really going to help. The NHS is being asked to treat people for conditions in 2023 that were unknown in the 1950s, using equipment that didn't exist in the 1950s and drugs that didn't exist in the 1950s. I don't think Nye Bevan was considering sex change ops, or gastric band surgery or immunotherapy, chemotherapy or any of these types of treatment which cost huge amounts of money when he blueprinted the NHS.
So another question is whether the NHS should offer every conceivable treatment, or focus on what 99% of the people will need over a lifetime?
For clarity, I am not advocating cessation of critical cancer treatment or similar, just focusing the NHS on what will keep people alive and healthy.
There are a lot of good points in this thread. I think everyone agrees the NHS is underfunded, but - in the short term - pouring loads more money in is not really going to help. The NHS is being asked to treat people for conditions in 2023 that were unknown in the 1950s, using equipment that didn't exist in the 1950s and drugs that didn't exist in the 1950s. I don't think Nye Bevan was considering sex change ops, or gastric band surgery or immunotherapy, chemotherapy or any of these types of treatment which cost huge amounts of money when he blueprinted the NHS.
So another question is whether the NHS should offer every conceivable treatment, or focus on what 99% of the people will need over a lifetime?
For clarity, I am not advocating cessation of critical cancer treatment or similar, just focusing the NHS on what will keep people alive and healthy.
Good post! Very interesting points. People living longer and new kinds of treatment have definitely changed things since it started
Can't agree with this when Trusts are asking people to pay up for ops to beat the queues. Where are these additional doctors coming from and are the OPs being carried out using NHS facilities.I'm coming around to thinking that if you can pay for treatment - you should - giving relief to people that need it and can't afford it - elderly, unemployed and low pay should all be exempt.
There are a lot of good points in this thread. I think everyone agrees the NHS is underfunded, but - in the short term - pouring loads more money in is not really going to help.