Skip to main content

The MFF and the NHS

I do have an answer now to the way in which tarriff payments are calculated for hospitals. It is the simple one of:

payment = MFF * unit cost.

What this means is that a central London hospital gets paid roughly 25% more than a Birmingham hospital and 40% more than the Cornwall hospital.

The real absurdity comes from doing this when they are actually ignoring the massively variable fixed costs. The fixed costs are due to be paid regardless so whereas they take into account local variations on a theoretical basis they don't take into account local variations on a non-theoretical basis.

I read through the Audit Commission's resport on the NHS finances for 2004-5 and as I expected much of the post audit increase in deficits comes from intra NHS balances. I have asked a question to tease out these figures for 2005-6 (which will probably not get answered). However, what is clear is that the figures reported by the Department of Health are not yet reliable.

Some local MFF figures
Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health 1.125837
Birmingham Childrens 1.127814
Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull (Teaching) 1.127678
Birmingham Womens Hospital 1.130812
Heart of Birmingham Teaching 1.123832
Sandwell and West Birmingham 1.097593
Good Hope (now merged) 1.088251

Some other MFF figures
Great Ormond St NHS Trust 1.417732
West of Cornwall 1.000000
University College London NHS Foundation Trust 1.420888
St Mary's NHS Trust 1.446064

What this means is that if someone turns up Dead on Arrival in West Cornwall the hospital gets £71 tariff whereas if they turn up DoA in St Mary's the hospital gets £102.67.

More importantly for Birmingham we are threatened with losing services at the Children's hospital because of a funding shortage whilst Great Ormond Street gets an additional 25.7% for every operation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…