New health funding allocation targets England's deprived areas
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
Deprived areas in England will get proportionally larger increases in funds for primary health care in the next couple of years, the health secretary, John Reid, announced last week.
The funding increase—in which no trust will get less than an average of 8.1% more in 2006-7 and 2007-8 than in 2005-6—was greeted as a step in the right direction, although critics queried how much of the extra cash would be used up in new pay deals for staff.
Mr Reid said that a total of ￡135bn ($250bn; 200bn) had been allocated to primary care trusts for 2006-7 and 2007-8. Increases in funding will be higher for the 88 so called spearhead trusts—those with the severest inequalities in health, including urban areas in the north and Midlands and 11 areas in London.
Trusts overall will receive an average of ￡1388 per patient for 2007-8, while spearhead areas will get ￡1710 per patient.
One of the principles of the allocation was to make prevention as important as cure, said Mr Reid. He said that the allocations will help fund initiatives outlined in the public health white paper Choosing Health: Making Healthier Choices Easier, initiatives such as school nurses, health trainers to tackle obesity, and improved services for sexually transmitted diseases.
"I am making sure that the most deprived areas, where there are appalling inequalities in life expectancy and concentrated problems of disease, such as lung cancer or heart disease, receive extra investment," he said. "This means the distribution of money, in both the north and the south, is fairer than ever before."
Professor Rod Griffiths, president of the Faculty of Public Health of the Royal College of Physicians, said: "This targets funds more heavily at deprived areas. That is a good idea. In the past, funding formulas have been criticised for enabling deprived areas to keep up but did not give them any extra to actually tackle the problems. This tips the balance a bit further. It will enable them to catch up and not just keep up. More is needed, but every little helps."
But Niall Dickson, chief executive of the King's Fund, the health think tank, warned that the health secretary was painting "too rosy a picture" of the allocation.
He said: "Much of this new investment will be eaten up by the NHS's big three pay deals for staff—the `agenda for change,' the general medical services (GMS) contract, and the consultant contract—as well as paying for extra pension costs, rising demand for health services, and health inflation."
The Department of Health first introduced a new formula to improve its funding of deprived areas in 2003. At the time trusts in these areas were receiving as much as 22% less than their fair share of available resources. By 2007-8 no trust will be more than 3.5% below its fair share, the department said.(Rebecca Coombes)
The funding increase—in which no trust will get less than an average of 8.1% more in 2006-7 and 2007-8 than in 2005-6—was greeted as a step in the right direction, although critics queried how much of the extra cash would be used up in new pay deals for staff.
Mr Reid said that a total of ￡135bn ($250bn; 200bn) had been allocated to primary care trusts for 2006-7 and 2007-8. Increases in funding will be higher for the 88 so called spearhead trusts—those with the severest inequalities in health, including urban areas in the north and Midlands and 11 areas in London.
Trusts overall will receive an average of ￡1388 per patient for 2007-8, while spearhead areas will get ￡1710 per patient.
One of the principles of the allocation was to make prevention as important as cure, said Mr Reid. He said that the allocations will help fund initiatives outlined in the public health white paper Choosing Health: Making Healthier Choices Easier, initiatives such as school nurses, health trainers to tackle obesity, and improved services for sexually transmitted diseases.
"I am making sure that the most deprived areas, where there are appalling inequalities in life expectancy and concentrated problems of disease, such as lung cancer or heart disease, receive extra investment," he said. "This means the distribution of money, in both the north and the south, is fairer than ever before."
Professor Rod Griffiths, president of the Faculty of Public Health of the Royal College of Physicians, said: "This targets funds more heavily at deprived areas. That is a good idea. In the past, funding formulas have been criticised for enabling deprived areas to keep up but did not give them any extra to actually tackle the problems. This tips the balance a bit further. It will enable them to catch up and not just keep up. More is needed, but every little helps."
But Niall Dickson, chief executive of the King's Fund, the health think tank, warned that the health secretary was painting "too rosy a picture" of the allocation.
He said: "Much of this new investment will be eaten up by the NHS's big three pay deals for staff—the `agenda for change,' the general medical services (GMS) contract, and the consultant contract—as well as paying for extra pension costs, rising demand for health services, and health inflation."
The Department of Health first introduced a new formula to improve its funding of deprived areas in 2003. At the time trusts in these areas were receiving as much as 22% less than their fair share of available resources. By 2007-8 no trust will be more than 3.5% below its fair share, the department said.(Rebecca Coombes)