Should we have positive discrimination in health care?

[Evei]

The Doctors heading up the NHS National Commissioning Board are resisting this (see Dec 2012 minutes), but, as with all public expenditure, it appears that this government is intent on moving £ from the poorest to the wealthiest areas.

 

Is that because the government would really like to pay public sector workers different amounts depending on were they live for doing the same job?

[Magilla]

Should we provide better healthcare to men in Tinsley, at the expense of women in Dore?

 

If the references to Dore and Tinsley represent different incomes and thus, different levels of contributions, & since the NHS provides the same care for all, this is already happening.

[erebus]

Positive discrimination is about saving money, so why bother with the OLD, Infirmed, unemployed, criminals and the poor, who are all a waste of time if one looks at tt through accounting eyes.

 

They are not cost effective, a waste of resources.

 

What do the poor, unemployed, old, sick do for the economy? Do they add prosperity?

 

Let nature do its work, survival of the fittest surely?

[Localman]

Is that because the government would really like to pay public sector workers different amounts depending on were they live for doing the same job?

 

I don't think so, as I believe that the government has now decided not to proceed with 'regional pay' for NHS staff, although Foundation Hospital Trusts have had the 'freedom' to noegotiate their own terms and conditions for some time.

 

This may assist:

 

Last year, Conservative health ministers suggested that community health funding should be allocated according to age rather than deprivation. The proposal to change the formula came as budgets were passed from Primary Care Trusts to the new Clinical Commissioning Groups set up under the Government’s NHS reorganisation.

 

A study by Durham University said that the move could see a 14% cut to Newcastle’s budget and a 15% cut for the North East region as a whole.

 

But now NHS Commissioning Board’s deputy chief executive Ian Dalton has confirmed that he has rejected the new formula. Speaking to Health Service Journal, Mr Dalton said the new formula would have “moved resources from areas where people sadly have worse health outcomes to those where people have much better outcomes.”

 

The changes to the allocation had been drawn up by former Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, who was accused of trying to “sneak through changes in the formula” after the Department of Health insisted funding would continue to go to the areas that needed it most.http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2013/01/12/changes-to-funding-in-nhs-are-scrapped-61634-32586497/#ixzz2I48iVHjD

 

---------- Post added 15-01-2013 at 17:37 ----------

 

If the references to Dore and Tinsley represent different incomes and thus, different levels of contributions, & since the NHS provides the same care for all, this is already happening.

 

It doesn't represent income levels. It reflects very significant differences in health.

 

For example, you may have read recently about the significant differences in air quality between Dore and Tinsley. This significantly arises because of (a) pollutants from the M1 and (b) the continuing, although much reduced compared to years gone by, levels of industrial pollution from the Don Valley.

 

The result is that the levels of respiratory and related illnesses - some becoming chronic - are significantly higher in Tinsley than in Dore.