Skip to main content

“There will be no more spin”

That’s excellent Mr Brown and a most welcome priority.

We are committed to promoting equality of access and equity in the provision of healthcare....and to improving the . The cross cutting report “Tackling Health Inequalities: A programme for Action (July 2003) has already identified the actions that are needed to improve the health of the poorest communities, and a comprehensive programme for public health is outlined in Derek Wanless’s (sic) report “Securing Good Health for the Whole Population (February 2004).


And so we continue.......:

Inequalities in healthcare mirror wider injustices in society, but we could and should be doing much more as a Department to tackle them.

We must ensure that tackling health inequalities is fully integrated into NHS commissioning and the operational framework. R.H. Tawney wrote that promoting equality is not about some “romantic illusion that men are equal in character and intelligence” : rather, it is about eliminating the inequalities which have their source “not in individual differences, but in organisation.”

First, we must improve access to decent healthcare for people from deprived communities.

But now, as we move on to the next phase of our transformation of public services, we have to ensure that these improvements reach everyone, using our unprecedented investment combined with increased efficiency, to promote fairness, equality and social justice; closing the gap between rich and poor.


Can you tell the difference?

Well the first quote is from the consultation document setting up the Healthcare Commission in 2004. The second quote is from Alan Johnson’s “first major speech” today at Toynbee Hall.

Young Alan also said:

Of course, there is always a risk that, as fruits fall from the tree, it is the tallest people who catch them first and, left unchecked, this can create a dangerous political paradox: where national progress can become socially regressive, as inequality advances. It is the responsibility of progressive politicians to ensure that the benefits of change are spread evenly across society.


Political paradoxes more likely! Here’s just two or three:

Last year the government insisted on a re-structuring of PCTs resulting in millions of pounds in redundancies with the senior managers getting the “fruits that fall from the tree” and now the poorest of the patients suffer most from an impossibility of access to the remote centralised PCT here in Norfolk.

In 2003, the government’s “progressive politicians” expensively established new bodies (including another QUANGO) called Patient and Public Involvement in Health. Now they are pushing legislation through Parliament which will abolish those expensively set up bodies to establish yet more expensively set up bodies in their place (Does this remind you of Alice Through the Looking Glass?) and wasting yet more millions which could have contributed to reducing inequalities.

And the fine very expensively established 2004 organisation from which the first quote in this PPlog comes is now going to be expensively done away with and replaced by another expensively set up organisation, Ofcare:

Ofcare will replace the Healthcare Commission, the Commission for Social Care Inspection, and the Mental Health Act Commission. (Health Service Journal 11.09.07.)


And, paradoxically:

Ms Walker (Chief Executive, Healthcare Commission) said there was a risk that Ofcare's remit would not cover measuring progress on health inequalities. (Health Service Journal 11.09.07.)

Comments

Anonymous said…
Am won over by their wisdom and forward thinking...

Another clear as mud lot of verbal gobbleydook from the government.

Or am dreaming I am a bit part actress in Back To The Future?

Boggle boggle

Mandy

Popular posts from this blog

SURVIVOR HISTORY NEWSLETTER

>From Andrew Roberts Secretary Survivors History Group http://studymore.org.uk/ studymore@studymore.org.uk telephone: 020 8 986 5251 home address: 177 Glenarm Road, London, E5 ONB Survivor History Group Summer 2012 Newsletter The July London meeting of the Survivors History Group will be held on Wednesday 25.7.2012 from 1pm to 5pm at Together, 12 Old Street, London. Everybody is welcome and refreshments will be provided. The September meeting has had to be moved from a Wednesday to Thursday 27.9.2012 (subject to approval by this Wednesday's meeting) because of the availability of a room at Together.   -------------------------------------------------------------------- The agenda for the July meeting will be drawn up at the beginning of the meeting, but it will include Peter Campbell's regular report back on the research he is leading on the history of Survivors Speak Out and discussion of material received from other people about Survivors Speak Out.  Rick Hennelly has se...

The DLA and Workfare Scandals.

This ConDem Coalition is exploiting the apparent helplessness of disabled people by taking essential money away from them and forcing vulnerable people, for example, people with mental health difficulties. I remember, when I was a practising social worker, the horror experienced by service users when they received a letter summoning them to undergo a medical examination (25 miles away in Norwich). Some became absolutely terrified at the prospect and the stress of having to get to and face the appointment led to one or two relapses and hospital admissions. Against local authority policy, I always took them to the appointment, went in with them and supported them through the interview acting as advocate. The doctors at these reviews were employed by the Benefits Agency and usually retired from practice. They were also usually empathic with the service user and mostly helped to reduce the terror of the interview. The new 'Workfare' reviews which every DLA claimant will have to und...

Mental Health Labels?

I read this valuable little report yesterday. It presents issues and dichotomies around disability labels, models of disability and rejections of the disability label by mental health service users/survivors. The report makes positive recommendations about furthering the debate but, in my opinion, the user contributions muddy rather than clarify matters. The subjects are seminal to the work being carried out to integrate physically, sensory, mental health and intellectual disabilities - essential if we are to progress further in our strivings for human and statutory rights. For me, the report is enormously helpful in providing a foundation for discussions of what are important questions and perhaps, if properly distributed, it could bring a better focus towards some resolution. Heddwch. Mike.