NHS Wastes (Another) £46bn

Michael C. Moynihan | September 13, 2007

Predictable headline of the day, from the London Times: "Man who helped NHS to £46bn says it wasted the money and needs more."

The money poured into the NHS has failed to produce a more efficient service, or to reduce unhealthy lifestyles. As a result even more cash will be needed in the future, says a new review by Sir Derek Wanless.

It was published yesterday, five years after his review for the Treasury paved the way for the extra £43.2 billion that the Government has since spent on the NHS. Sir Derek, a former chief executive of NatWest bank, sees some improvements in the service, but also identifies a range of failings, including mismanaged structural changes; generous pay deals that failed to produce an obvious return; and a neglect of public health.

In an accompanying editorial, Times Health Editor Nigel Hawkes comments that "The NHS used to be underfunded and ineffective. Now it is only one of these."

In other NHS news, The Independent reports that last year alone the British Department of Health spent over $6.1 million on first class train travel, and a further $1.5 million on taxis and business class travel. As the Spectator's Coffeehouse Blog noted, this is could cover the NHS's massive shortfall in Alzheimer drugs.

Comments

|9.13.07 @ 11:23AM|#

... or to reduce unhealthy lifestyles

Maybe that's why the money is wasted? Becuase they are focusing on pie in the sky shit that is near impossible to do? People live the lifestyles they want to fucking live and no government agency will be able to change that.

It's not like people don't know what is healthy and what isn't. It's just that a healthy lifestyle is unappealing to many people.

Episiarch|9.13.07 @ 11:23AM|#

NEWS FLASH: Govt bureauracracy wastes money and pays management way too much, and has no interest in efficiency as there is no comepetition. FILM AT 11!

|9.13.07 @ 11:28AM|#

The money poured into the NHS has failed to produce a more efficient service, or to reduce unhealthy lifestyles. As a result even more cash will be needed in the future, says a new review by Sir Derek Wanless.

Deja vu, all over again. Non sequiter. Lame plea for more money and power.

Next!

|9.13.07 @ 1:33PM|#

I work for a large and well-known company. As part of my job, I have access to pricing information from every large customer agreement signed around the world. It should come as no surprise to anyone that government agencies pay almost twice as much per license as private entities, and in all the world, no one pays more per license than NHS.

Why is this? Because private companies negotiate lower prices, and government negotiators just pay full price...

carrick|9.13.07 @ 2:06PM|#

Government Services: You can buy better, but you can't pay more (sm)

|9.13.07 @ 2:07PM|#

So, governments negotiate the lowest drug prices, but companies negotiate the lowest license prices? So, why don't insurance companies negotiate lower drug prices, and why can't governments apply their drug negotiation strategies to their license negotiations?

K.|9.13.07 @ 2:27PM|#

Off topicL

Has anyone seen this? Pretty infuriating. I'm expecting to see it on Hit & Run soon.

http://www.ontopresults.com/blog/2007/09/13/17-year-old-myspace-millionaire-ceo-not-allowed-to-touch-assets/

|9.13.07 @ 4:02PM|#

So, governments negotiate the lowest drug prices, but companies negotiate the lowest license prices?

When the government decides what medicines are available in hospitals or subsidized by the government, they take in consideration the price negotiated.

So if a Big Pharma company negotiaties a good deal with the government, the government might give that product a de-facto monopoly for a certain type of treatment.

So the big Pharma corporations make the same amount of money either way.

Where as, Microsoft knows that you aren't going to get your typical government bureaucrat to learn a new spreadsheet package (there are specific union rules about training, after all), so they can charge through the nose and they know the government will have to pay.

|9.13.07 @ 4:33PM|#

...As a result even more cash will be needed in the future

For statists everywhere, a government program only fails because it wasn't funded adequately and therefore taxes need to be increased.

If a government program is successful, we should expand this program and therefore need to increase taxes.