Spoiler Alert: Cancer's winning.
"[A] report by Cancer Research UK said that ‘cracks are beginning to show’ in NHS cancer diagnostic and treatment services ... Specialists have been struggling to keep up with the rising demand for care at the same time as their budgets have shrunk amid the NHS's £30bn efficiency drive"
Once again, we need to point out that nationalized health care regimes are no more successful at reining in costs while maintaining (let alone improving) health care delivery than our previous system.
My Project Manager Better Half often speaks of "resource starved" organizations. That is, businesses that, rather than spending the necessary funds to fully staff a given project, instead rely on fewer and fewer personnel to handle the tasks. This creates a strain on both the company and the folks that are left, exacerbating the problem even further.
That seems to be the case in Britain, where "[t]he abolition of scores of NHS bodies ... such as the scrapping of the highly regarded National Cancer Action Team and cancer clinical networks, has produced an unhelpful "vacuum" and loss of leadership in cancer delivery."
No kidding. Previously, the Much Vaunted National Health System© relied on several key coordinating groups, including "NHS England, NHS Improving Quality and the 211 GP-led local clinical commissioning groups." Not that these folks were any great shakes when it came to, for example, caring for elderly cancer patients.
Of course, the answer always seems to be "throw more money at it," when, in fact, it's not so much a funding problem as it is a structural one. Of further course, the powers that be don't see it that way.
They never do.
[Hat Tip: Co-blogger Bob V]
"[A] report by Cancer Research UK said that ‘cracks are beginning to show’ in NHS cancer diagnostic and treatment services ... Specialists have been struggling to keep up with the rising demand for care at the same time as their budgets have shrunk amid the NHS's £30bn efficiency drive"
Once again, we need to point out that nationalized health care regimes are no more successful at reining in costs while maintaining (let alone improving) health care delivery than our previous system.
My Project Manager Better Half often speaks of "resource starved" organizations. That is, businesses that, rather than spending the necessary funds to fully staff a given project, instead rely on fewer and fewer personnel to handle the tasks. This creates a strain on both the company and the folks that are left, exacerbating the problem even further.
That seems to be the case in Britain, where "[t]he abolition of scores of NHS bodies ... such as the scrapping of the highly regarded National Cancer Action Team and cancer clinical networks, has produced an unhelpful "vacuum" and loss of leadership in cancer delivery."
No kidding. Previously, the Much Vaunted National Health System© relied on several key coordinating groups, including "NHS England, NHS Improving Quality and the 211 GP-led local clinical commissioning groups." Not that these folks were any great shakes when it came to, for example, caring for elderly cancer patients.
Of course, the answer always seems to be "throw more money at it," when, in fact, it's not so much a funding problem as it is a structural one. Of further course, the powers that be don't see it that way.
They never do.
[Hat Tip: Co-blogger Bob V]
MVNHS© vs Cancer
![MVNHS© vs Cancer]()
Reviewed by citra
Published :
Rating : 4.5
Published :
Rating : 4.5
