https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ient-care.html
So compare to other countries.
Here's how to save the NHS £12bn... without damaging patient care: ROSS CLARK's forensic blueprint proves there are smarter ways to improve the Health Service than hitting us with a tax hike
- There are almost six million people on the NHS waiting list for routine treatments
- Government's response has been to promise an extra £12 billion a year to service
- Here are a few suggestions of how to raise that £12 billion without hiking taxes
British patients spend significantly longer in hospital for the same operations and procedures compared with other countries, according to a study by the healthcare think-tank the King's Fund in 2015.
It found that patients in Sweden spent 15 per cent less time in hospital, while in Australia it was 18 per cent, in France 20 per cent and in Norway 36 per cent.
Out of 142 NHS trusts, one in six hospitals recorded length of stays 20 per cent above average. Cut these, calculated the King's Fund, and the NHS could treat 18 per cent more acute patients — or alternatively save taxpayers some money.
With a stay in an NHS acute bed costed at £400 a day, reducing the length of time that patients have to spend in hospital by just 10 per cent would save £2 billion a year.
It found that patients in Sweden spent 15 per cent less time in hospital, while in Australia it was 18 per cent, in France 20 per cent and in Norway 36 per cent.
Out of 142 NHS trusts, one in six hospitals recorded length of stays 20 per cent above average. Cut these, calculated the King's Fund, and the NHS could treat 18 per cent more acute patients — or alternatively save taxpayers some money.
With a stay in an NHS acute bed costed at £400 a day, reducing the length of time that patients have to spend in hospital by just 10 per cent would save £2 billion a year.
But Lord Carter's 2016 report found that some trusts were spending 2.5 times as much on the same drugs as other trusts.
It was the same story when it came to devices such as hip replacements.
A study of 15 trusts found that the most profligate was spending more than twice as much for artificial hip joints as the most economical.
It wasn't that the bigger spenders were getting a better class of device — and nor was it a matter of economies of scale (some larger trusts were paying more than smaller ones).
Lord Carter put the value of potential savings from procurement at £800 million a year.
It was the same story when it came to devices such as hip replacements.
A study of 15 trusts found that the most profligate was spending more than twice as much for artificial hip joints as the most economical.
It wasn't that the bigger spenders were getting a better class of device — and nor was it a matter of economies of scale (some larger trusts were paying more than smaller ones).
Lord Carter put the value of potential savings from procurement at £800 million a year.
Comment