I have to admit confusion about average waiting times for the NHS. The Independent's package on the NHS today includes a box (not on website as far as I can see) in which the following average waiting times are given:
Outpatient treatment:
1999: 7.7 weeks
2005: 6.6 weeks.
Inpatient treatment
1998: 14.2 weeks
2005 7.5 weeks.
The figures for outpatient waits are very similar to those given by the Financial Times on January 6th and mentioned in this posting.
I reported that the FT said , "The average time for stage 1 has fallen since March 2000, falling from 7.7 weeks to 6.8 weeks (as at October 2005)."
But the change in average waits for inpatient treatment was shown as very different in the FT. In related the FT's view like this:
"The time for stage three, from the decision to admit up to the operation has gone up, from 6.1 weeks to 7.4 weeks (as at March 2005). (The well-publicised waiting list figures are based on this stage 3)."
Looking at a report by the King's Fund published in August 2005, The War on Waiting for Hospital Treatment I find this comment in the summary:
"By the time of the 2005 election, substantial progress had been made in reducing the number of long waits. While average waiting times had not changed by much..."
So has the Independent inadvertently put in a wrong figure, or is there more to this?
Outpatient treatment:
1999: 7.7 weeks
2005: 6.6 weeks.
Inpatient treatment
1998: 14.2 weeks
2005 7.5 weeks.
The figures for outpatient waits are very similar to those given by the Financial Times on January 6th and mentioned in this posting.
I reported that the FT said , "The average time for stage 1 has fallen since March 2000, falling from 7.7 weeks to 6.8 weeks (as at October 2005)."
But the change in average waits for inpatient treatment was shown as very different in the FT. In related the FT's view like this:
"The time for stage three, from the decision to admit up to the operation has gone up, from 6.1 weeks to 7.4 weeks (as at March 2005). (The well-publicised waiting list figures are based on this stage 3)."
Looking at a report by the King's Fund published in August 2005, The War on Waiting for Hospital Treatment I find this comment in the summary:
"By the time of the 2005 election, substantial progress had been made in reducing the number of long waitis. While average waiting times had not changed by much..."
So has The Independent inadvertently put in a wrong figure, or is there more to this?
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in NHS
Comments (4)
TrackBack (3)
Comments
Waiting list times are indeed decreasing.
That's because instead of putting you on the waiting list straight away, they send you a letter (on unheaded paper) telling you that they will contact you again at some unspecified future date to let you know when you'll be put on the waiting list.
You couldn't make it up - it happened to my mother.
Posted by: HJHJ at January 18, 2006 10:51 PM
James, with respect your figures for doctor's pay are not quite right.
Currently, a full time GP who is more or less achieving targets is probably closer to £100K though the range is about £75-120K
The really switched on buck-chasing GPs can get up to £150K or more, but there are not many of those.
GPs have had significant pay rises over the last 2-3 years. For my practice personally that has been about 20% before tax. Not to be sneezed at. But there were lean years before.
Consultant's basic pay is now between £60 - £90K. This goes up automatically with time from 60 to 90K.
On top of that there are "merit" awards which can add another £60K or so. If you really want to dig into a scandal of masonic proportion, look at how merit awards are handed out. Look at how many female doctors get them. They mainly go to politically savvy male high profile consultants such as London cardiologists. You will not find many female psychiatrists in Lancashire with them. It always amazes me that the media does not expose this disgraceful system.
Consultants also do private practice. For some, this may just be a few thousand. For the few, the ENT surgeons for example who have lots of little operations to do, you are looking at maybe £300K or more.
Why has doctors pay gone up so much? Well, I don't think consultants NHS pay is too high - for some of them they do not reach consultant status until the age of 40. It is a hard training.
Are GPs overpaid? Not one for me to answer. I am a GP so I am biased.
But take a GP with a wife who does not work and with two children. He wants to live in a large house in a middle class area, to run two cars, to educate two children privately and have two good holidays a year. Tough, you may say. He has no God given right to that. And of course he does not. But look at the number of young newly qualified doctors who leave medicine immediatly after finishing their training.
The doctor who founded our practice bought a house locally and was criticised by his father becasue the house cost twice his annual income. That same house now costs 11 times my annual income. Oddly enough I do not live in it. It is now owned by a Allen & Ovary solicitor. I could not afford to live on the same road, or indeed anywhere near.
I do not say I SHOULD be able to do all that, or that I have a RIGHT to all that. I am not bitter about it. I do the job I want to do. But the fact is that this country, rightly or wrongly, does not reward doctors as well as some other professionals. The teachers of course have it even worse.
The reasons that the government is increasing GPs pay at the moment are:
(i) Stalinist health "targets". The Government likes this because it enables them to "measure" successful health care. So, for example, we get "points" for checking the cholesterol levels in women of 85. This is a complete nonesense, but it is what the government wants.
GPs are human. The government says "achieve these targets and we will give you a pay rise." So, most GPs have chased and achieved the targets. It has been hard work. We have done what we have been asked to do.....and now we are being criticised for doing it. You cannot win there.
The system, as you continually argue, is fundamentally and fatally flawed. There is much to commend the pre-1948 system. But you might as well attack motherhood and apple pie. You would get a bigger audience.
The target chasing job has become onerus and unpleasant. There is a desperate shortage of GPs and so the government has to pay more to get them in. But it is not a real economic market, because it is state controlled.
The government thinks that all welfare problems can be solved by throwing huge sums of money at the problems, closely followed by an army of bean counters tasked with "measuring outcome".
We need to clean the blackboard and start again.
I think you have been saying that for awhile
John
Posted by: Dr John Crippen at January 20, 2006 09:47 AM
Hi, nice and very informative post, first I’d like to appreciate you, you replied to all comments, good job, hope you’ll keep it up. Thanks for your great blog, its really useful.
Posted by: Sergey at December 15, 2008 12:37 AM
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2006/01/confusion_over.php on line 386
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Bad arguments. in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2006/01/confusion_over.php on line 386
Waiting list times decreasing?
Hmmm..
Try talking to Dr Crippen about that.
Toodle Pip!
PG
Posted by: The Pedant-General at January 18, 2006 05:27 PM