Wednesday, 28 March 2007

RAB scrapped/Lord Hunt 'apoligises' for lies


The rules that punished NHS trusts twice over with a 'double whammy' of debt repayment have been scrapped.

"Steve Bundred, chief executive of the Audit Commission, which recommended last year that RAB not be imposed on individual NHS trusts, added: "Deficits are not being written-off. But an unfair system is being corrected. Trusts will no longer effectively have to recover deficits twice.""

It still leaves a rather gaping question unanswered, what happens to the money that trusts have had to pay back TWICE over to the government? Will the trusts be recompensed with interest for the extra cash they have unfairly had to pay back to the government? I very much doubt it. The trusts will be forced to carry on cutting front line services thanks to the deliberate imposition of the deficits.

The Chancellor Gordon Brown must clearly shoulder a large amount of the blame for this situation; he has been enforcing these stupid rules that have directly resulted in cuts to frontline services. It is also rather pertinent that this same Chancellor is happy to give black cheques to CFISSA/PFIs and other profligate initiatives. Double standards and a hidden agenda perhaps, make up your own mind.

Front point sytems also points out certain NHS budget problems, as well as rising readmission rates that are arguably down to the pressure of our favourite propaganda producing targets.

Meanwhile Lord Hunt quoted from today:

"
I would like to correct a statement which I made to the House on 19 March about the medical training application system in answer to a question asked by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. I said that doctors alone were involved in short-listing candidates for specialty training. It has since been brought to my attention that in some cases other staff, including senior non-medical clinicians or senior deanery human resources staff, are involved in the process. Guidance was issued to the deaneries, and it was they who decided on the composition of the short-listing panels. Since my Statement to the House on 19 March 2007, the independent review group has recommended that all applicants who were long-listed are to be invited to attend an interview for their preferred choice of training opportunity. This means that the short-listing process is far less significant than it was.

I offer my unreserved apologies to the House for the inaccuracy of my initial Statement."

Lord Hunt still hasn't apologised to the juniors affected by this mess. He also states that the short listing process is of far less significant than it was, this is slightly disingenuous as the lack of short listing is now of huge significance; how having no short listing at all and one interview per candidate can be seen as fair is beyond a joke. Lord Hunt has lied to the house and he should not be allowed to get away with this; but given this government's lack of intergrity he'll probably carry on regardless I'd imagine.

5 comments:

Dr John Crippen said...

Brilliant spot. Excellent.

Now to be pernickity:


"It has since been brought to my attention that in some cases other staff, including senior non-medical clinicians or senior deanery human resources staff, are involved in the process."

WTF is a "non medical clinician" - I feel an oxymoron coming on. He obviously feels bad about it, because he describes them as "senior dickhe...sorry, non-medical clinicians"

Similarly, "deanery human resources staff" - what does this mean? Typists? No , no, they are "senior" .. they may have an "A" Level.

What is going on?




John

northerner said...

Resign? What? With this rotten government of control freaks and spin men? You've gotta be joking...if he gets away with this one he'll most likely be promoted...

Garth Marenghi said...

exactly, what on earth is senior non medical clinician meant to mean!

Patsy is a senior non medical clinician herself, doesn't stop her being 100% f*ckwit.

mens sana said...

The government not going to pay back the money, but they are going to claim that the NHS is 13 million in surplus because they are going to "use a £450 million contingency" from the treasury. Call me old fashioned, but I think that makes the NHS about 437 million in deficit. Or maybe I'm just not clever enough to understand the accounting

Garth Marenghi said...

all in all, the nhs isn't ever really in deficit, it's just the government don't fund it enough to do the work that needs doing!

It's all about perspective