A senior fire office last night issued a stark warning that a repeat of the 1953 floods - which killed 100 in Norfolk - would have a more devastating impact today because of a lack of specialist crews - reports the Eastern Daily Press.
East Anglia has been identified as one of the least protected areas of the country in a report which reveals a national shortage of firefighters trained in flood rescues.
Paul Hayden, who coordinates flood rescues for the Chief Fire Officers' Association and is the former deputy chief fire officer for Norfolk, called for additional training and equipment so more firefighters can respond to major flooding disasters.
Thursday, 12 June 2008
Monday, 9 June 2008
Youngsters wait longer for dental care
Young people in Norfolk and Suffolk are being forced to wait up to four years for orthodontic appointments, despite more than £5m being pumped into the region's NHS dental services - reports the Eastern Daily Press.
However, the sum is equivalent to only 8 hours of cash the government pays to the audit-failing European Union every year - even taking into account grants and subisides Britain receives back. And only about a fifth of the money will be spent on tackling the severe shortage of orthodontists.
Meanwhile, the average wait for orthodontic care in the Yarmouth and Waveney Primary Care Trust (PCT) area now tops three and a half years, with patients in Suffolk and Norfolk waiting two and a half year before an appointment.
Last month, NHS Norfolk announced that it would invest £2.8m in the county's NHS dentistry services to tackle shortages in towns including Dereham and North Walsham, but only £720,000 will be spent on improving access to orthodontic treatment.
Although the extra funding should allow about 600 more cases to be dealt with each year by employing at least two more specialist orthodontists, it will take several years for the long waiting lists to be reduced.
Liberal Democrat shadow health secretary and North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb said: “Norfolk has some completely unacceptable waiting times and, as a parent whose children have both benefitted from orthodontic treatment, I sympathise with the problem.
“Parents are finding now that getting treatment for their children is much more difficult than it was just three or four years ago, the service has deteriorated that quickly. It is a serious issue.”
In the Yarmouth and Waveney area, the average waiting time is three and a half years - meaning that many patients are left waiting significantly longer than that before treatment.
With some youngsters being referred to orthodontists when they are 10 or 11, they could be in their late teens before the work to correct their teeth is complete.
Bob Purser, contracts manager for Yarmouth and Waveney PCT, said: “We acknowledge that there is currently an extended assessment waiting time for primary care specialist orthodontics treatment. A key priority for the PCT for the coming 12 months is to significantly reduce this waiting time.”
Suffolk PCT announced a £1.3m investment in its NHS dental services earlier this year, but only about £900,000 has been ring-fenced for orthodontic care.
NHS Norfolk is due to increase spending on dentistry by 13pc next year, totalling a £2.8m investment.
A spokesman for Suffolk PCT said: “We are aware that some of the waiting lists for orthodontic treatment are longer than we would like. Working with our orthodontists, we are identifying ways of improving access and reducing waiting times. In 07/08 the PCT invested an additional £230,000 precisely for this purpose.”
But these are drops in the ocean compared to the scale of cash central government is wasting on the audit-failing EU, and will make little impact reducing the long waiting lists.
The government must stop wasting so much money on an organisation that hasn't been able to get its accounts approved for 13 years running, and focus on continuing funding shortfalls within NHS Primary Care Trusts that are causing these poor service levels.
However, the sum is equivalent to only 8 hours of cash the government pays to the audit-failing European Union every year - even taking into account grants and subisides Britain receives back. And only about a fifth of the money will be spent on tackling the severe shortage of orthodontists.
Meanwhile, the average wait for orthodontic care in the Yarmouth and Waveney Primary Care Trust (PCT) area now tops three and a half years, with patients in Suffolk and Norfolk waiting two and a half year before an appointment.
Last month, NHS Norfolk announced that it would invest £2.8m in the county's NHS dentistry services to tackle shortages in towns including Dereham and North Walsham, but only £720,000 will be spent on improving access to orthodontic treatment.
Although the extra funding should allow about 600 more cases to be dealt with each year by employing at least two more specialist orthodontists, it will take several years for the long waiting lists to be reduced.
Liberal Democrat shadow health secretary and North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb said: “Norfolk has some completely unacceptable waiting times and, as a parent whose children have both benefitted from orthodontic treatment, I sympathise with the problem.
“Parents are finding now that getting treatment for their children is much more difficult than it was just three or four years ago, the service has deteriorated that quickly. It is a serious issue.”
In the Yarmouth and Waveney area, the average waiting time is three and a half years - meaning that many patients are left waiting significantly longer than that before treatment.
With some youngsters being referred to orthodontists when they are 10 or 11, they could be in their late teens before the work to correct their teeth is complete.
Bob Purser, contracts manager for Yarmouth and Waveney PCT, said: “We acknowledge that there is currently an extended assessment waiting time for primary care specialist orthodontics treatment. A key priority for the PCT for the coming 12 months is to significantly reduce this waiting time.”
Suffolk PCT announced a £1.3m investment in its NHS dental services earlier this year, but only about £900,000 has been ring-fenced for orthodontic care.
NHS Norfolk is due to increase spending on dentistry by 13pc next year, totalling a £2.8m investment.
A spokesman for Suffolk PCT said: “We are aware that some of the waiting lists for orthodontic treatment are longer than we would like. Working with our orthodontists, we are identifying ways of improving access and reducing waiting times. In 07/08 the PCT invested an additional £230,000 precisely for this purpose.”
But these are drops in the ocean compared to the scale of cash central government is wasting on the audit-failing EU, and will make little impact reducing the long waiting lists.
The government must stop wasting so much money on an organisation that hasn't been able to get its accounts approved for 13 years running, and focus on continuing funding shortfalls within NHS Primary Care Trusts that are causing these poor service levels.
Wednesday, 4 June 2008
Chichester: NHS bosses confirm hospital cuts
Health bosses have confirmed they will go ahead with the downgrading of St Richard's Hospital in Chichester - reports the BBC.
West Sussex Primary Care Trust (PCT) announced last week that Worthing would be the county's major general hospital, having full paediatrics, A&E and consultant-led maternity care
Emergency A&E and maternity services at St Richard's will be cut, forcing long travel times on those who require these services from the area served by the hospital.
The PCT has said St Richard's will retain 90% of its A&E services, with only patients with major problems, those needing emergency surgery and victims of serious accidents going elsewhere.
It said 50% would go to Portsmouth and 50% to Worthing, with the majority being taken directly by ambulance to the appropriate hospital.
However, journey times to those hospitals from the area covered by St Richard's are significant and highly vulnerable to traffic problems at rush hour.
One St Richard's campaigner told BBC South Today: "I often have to go in as an emergency.
"If I have to go to Worthing or Portsmouth it could be fatal."
The PCT said journey times had been taken into consideration when making the decision and it was aware that people in Selsey suffering serious accidents and requiring emergency surgery would have travel times greater than one hour at peak times.
But it said that, on balance, a much greater number of people would be adversely affected if the major general hospital was in Chichester.
Why the PCT has been forced into making this choice and there are insufficient public funds to keep adequate services at BOTH hospitals is the key question in this affair - and very likely due to central government wasting vast sums on other areas of spending.
For example, by sending £115 million every single week to the European Union, whose budget has failed its annual audit for 13 years in a row, and which has a terrible reputation for waste and fraud.
This is totally wasted money and far more than would be required to maintain services at St Richards. The government needs to decide which is more important - health services, or the European Union.
Campaigners for St Richard's are now considering whether to seek a judicial review of the decision.
West Sussex Primary Care Trust (PCT) announced last week that Worthing would be the county's major general hospital, having full paediatrics, A&E and consultant-led maternity care
Emergency A&E and maternity services at St Richard's will be cut, forcing long travel times on those who require these services from the area served by the hospital.
The PCT has said St Richard's will retain 90% of its A&E services, with only patients with major problems, those needing emergency surgery and victims of serious accidents going elsewhere.
It said 50% would go to Portsmouth and 50% to Worthing, with the majority being taken directly by ambulance to the appropriate hospital.
However, journey times to those hospitals from the area covered by St Richard's are significant and highly vulnerable to traffic problems at rush hour.
One St Richard's campaigner told BBC South Today: "I often have to go in as an emergency.
"If I have to go to Worthing or Portsmouth it could be fatal."
The PCT said journey times had been taken into consideration when making the decision and it was aware that people in Selsey suffering serious accidents and requiring emergency surgery would have travel times greater than one hour at peak times.
But it said that, on balance, a much greater number of people would be adversely affected if the major general hospital was in Chichester.
Why the PCT has been forced into making this choice and there are insufficient public funds to keep adequate services at BOTH hospitals is the key question in this affair - and very likely due to central government wasting vast sums on other areas of spending.
For example, by sending £115 million every single week to the European Union, whose budget has failed its annual audit for 13 years in a row, and which has a terrible reputation for waste and fraud.
This is totally wasted money and far more than would be required to maintain services at St Richards. The government needs to decide which is more important - health services, or the European Union.
Campaigners for St Richard's are now considering whether to seek a judicial review of the decision.
Labels:
bognor regis,
chichester,
hospitals,
NHS cuts,
selsey,
west sussex
Friday, 30 May 2008
Norfolk: Retired fireman loses battle for cancer drug
A retired fireman has suffered a setback in his battle to win funding for a cancer drug, reports the Eastern Daily Press.
Liver cancer patient Barry Humphrey has lost an appeal for a £5,000 trial for a drug aimed at buying him more time.
His upset wife Hazel says health bosses have “sentenced him to an early death” though their latest decision.
After 25 years service saving lives as a fireman in London, Mr Humphrey developed a rare cancer, triggered by hepatitis caught from a casualty during a rescue.
But officials at NHS Norfolk have decided not to fund treatment recommended by his consultant, saying Mr Humphrey's case fails to meet national cost-effectiveness guidelines on new drugs.
The couple, from Kimberley Road, are now seeing if there is anywhere else they can take their fight.
Funding the two-month trial treatment themselves was a last option - but they were reluctant having been told they would be opting out of the NHS, resulting in them having to pick up all treatment costs.
Fewer than 5% of liver cancer patients survive more than five years, so time is not on the Humphreys' side without some kind of treatment. And Barry says his consultants believe there are no other alternative drugs.
NHS Norfolk medical director Bryan Heap said treatment funding decisions were taken on clinical rather than social circumstances, so Mr Humphrey's past as an exemplary citizen unfortunately could not be taken into consideration.
The cost of Sorafenib, along with administration, extra scans and follow-up was £150,000 a year, and trials indicated an increase in life expectancy of 12 weeks, with no cure or reduction of symptoms.
Guidelines recommended not funding a new drug if the figure was greater than £30,000, he added.
North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrats health spokesman who has been backing Mr Humphrey's battle, said he was “horrified” by the appeal refusal, and would be seeking to meet a senior official from NHS Norfolk to argue the case.
Liver cancer patient Barry Humphrey has lost an appeal for a £5,000 trial for a drug aimed at buying him more time.
His upset wife Hazel says health bosses have “sentenced him to an early death” though their latest decision.
After 25 years service saving lives as a fireman in London, Mr Humphrey developed a rare cancer, triggered by hepatitis caught from a casualty during a rescue.
But officials at NHS Norfolk have decided not to fund treatment recommended by his consultant, saying Mr Humphrey's case fails to meet national cost-effectiveness guidelines on new drugs.
The couple, from Kimberley Road, are now seeing if there is anywhere else they can take their fight.
Funding the two-month trial treatment themselves was a last option - but they were reluctant having been told they would be opting out of the NHS, resulting in them having to pick up all treatment costs.
Fewer than 5% of liver cancer patients survive more than five years, so time is not on the Humphreys' side without some kind of treatment. And Barry says his consultants believe there are no other alternative drugs.
NHS Norfolk medical director Bryan Heap said treatment funding decisions were taken on clinical rather than social circumstances, so Mr Humphrey's past as an exemplary citizen unfortunately could not be taken into consideration.
The cost of Sorafenib, along with administration, extra scans and follow-up was £150,000 a year, and trials indicated an increase in life expectancy of 12 weeks, with no cure or reduction of symptoms.
Guidelines recommended not funding a new drug if the figure was greater than £30,000, he added.
North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrats health spokesman who has been backing Mr Humphrey's battle, said he was “horrified” by the appeal refusal, and would be seeking to meet a senior official from NHS Norfolk to argue the case.
Labels:
cancer,
drugs,
NHS funding,
norfolk,
sorafenib
Thursday, 22 May 2008
Smith 'betrayed' police over pay
The home secretary has "betrayed the police service" by refusing to backdate a 2.5% pay rise, the BBC reports today.
Speaking at its conference, the Police Federation chairman Jan Berry said that Jacqui Smith's decision had been "a monumental mistake".
Last year, Jacqui Smith decided not to backdate to September a 2.5% pay rise for police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The police say this means their rise, only paid from December 2007, in reality amounts to 1.9%.
On Tuesday, federation members voted to lobby for the right to strike.
Ms Berry also compared Ms Smith to Education Secretary Ed Balls who has recently defended a pay deal for teachers. "Home Secretary, what is it that Mr Balls has but you do not?" she asked.
"Your decision not to honour the pay award was a breach of faith", she said. "It was a monumental mistake, and I don't say this lightly when I say you betrayed the police service."
Ms Smith later addressed the 1,000 conference delegates, saying: "I know you strongly disagree with the decision, but it was one that I took only after a lot of thought, after considering the full facts of the case, the need to keep mortgages and the cost of living under control - and that includes your mortgages and your families' cost of living as well."
Neglecting to mention that the government regards it 'affordable' to reward the repeatedly audit-failing EU with a 63% increase in public funds - or £2.5bn a year extra for the next five years.
Is the wasteful and extravagant EU really a higher priority than fair pay for our Police? That's certainly the message Jacqui Smith is sending, and isn't one that's likely to be well-received at the ballot box come the next general election.
Speaking at its conference, the Police Federation chairman Jan Berry said that Jacqui Smith's decision had been "a monumental mistake".
Last year, Jacqui Smith decided not to backdate to September a 2.5% pay rise for police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The police say this means their rise, only paid from December 2007, in reality amounts to 1.9%.
On Tuesday, federation members voted to lobby for the right to strike.
Ms Berry also compared Ms Smith to Education Secretary Ed Balls who has recently defended a pay deal for teachers. "Home Secretary, what is it that Mr Balls has but you do not?" she asked.
"Your decision not to honour the pay award was a breach of faith", she said. "It was a monumental mistake, and I don't say this lightly when I say you betrayed the police service."
Ms Smith later addressed the 1,000 conference delegates, saying: "I know you strongly disagree with the decision, but it was one that I took only after a lot of thought, after considering the full facts of the case, the need to keep mortgages and the cost of living under control - and that includes your mortgages and your families' cost of living as well."
Neglecting to mention that the government regards it 'affordable' to reward the repeatedly audit-failing EU with a 63% increase in public funds - or £2.5bn a year extra for the next five years.
Is the wasteful and extravagant EU really a higher priority than fair pay for our Police? That's certainly the message Jacqui Smith is sending, and isn't one that's likely to be well-received at the ballot box come the next general election.
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
Elderly care faces £6bn shortfall
Every working family could face paying an "ageing tax" to provide care for the elderly, Gordon Brown proposed yesterday.
Why won't Gordon Brown consider stopping this blatant waste of exactly the amount of money he needs, in order to prevent elderly care services deteriorating or hitting people with yet more taxes?
The new consultation paper was launched by Mr Brown in a talk at the King's Fund, the research group that published the 2006 report on the cost of ageing by Sir Derek Wanless.
Sir Derek estimated that an extra £10billion is needed to make the care system work properly, but there was only a token £31million of new money on offer yesterday - just under two days worth of what the Government is prepared to hand the EU. A terrible example of the government's warped priorities with scarce public funds.
Yesterday's consultation paper, endorsed by Mr Brown and seven Cabinet ministers, put back any decisions until next year.
The ageing tax is a central plank of a six month consultation launched by the Prime Minister in the face of a growing crisis over who should meet the bills for the care of the elderly.
The Daily Mail reports that this new tax would take the form of a compulsory levy to force people to cover the cost of care home places in the last stages of their lives.
The introduction of such a tax would reignite questions, most recently provoked over charges for rubbish collections, about what exactly people pay Council Tax for - if all the services that it's supposed to cover have to be paid for over again.
According to the BBC report, Gordon Brown says that the care system in England alone faces a £6bn shortfall within 20 years. An amount that just happens to be exactly the same as our new net annual contribution to the EU's leaky budget, which Gordon Brown agreed to following a deal done by Tony Blair in December 2005.
The PM claims that the Treasury cannot pay the fast-rising cost of care homes and home help as the number of elderly people increases, and that the system now needs a 'radical shake up' to avoid this cash crunch.
Why won't Gordon Brown consider stopping this blatant waste of exactly the amount of money he needs, in order to prevent elderly care services deteriorating or hitting people with yet more taxes?
The new consultation paper was launched by Mr Brown in a talk at the King's Fund, the research group that published the 2006 report on the cost of ageing by Sir Derek Wanless.
Sir Derek estimated that an extra £10billion is needed to make the care system work properly, but there was only a token £31million of new money on offer yesterday - just under two days worth of what the Government is prepared to hand the EU. A terrible example of the government's warped priorities with scarce public funds.
Yesterday's consultation paper, endorsed by Mr Brown and seven Cabinet ministers, put back any decisions until next year.
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
UK's flood defences 'inadequate', warn MPs
Britain could be at risk of a repeat of last summer's flood disaster because the money being spent on improving defences is "inadequate" - reports the Daily Telegraph today.
Ministers had claimed that the £800m earmarked for flood prevention by 2010-2011 (in contrast, equivalent to a mere
7 weeks of our net payments to the EU budget) would be enough.
But MPs on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (EFRA) have warned that the figure for government spending was "far less impressive under close analysis" and may be insufficient to deal with traditional and new flooding threats.
Last night the government announced £31m from the European Union's Solidarity Fund would be spent on the areas worst hit by the floods (not even two days worth of the NET amount we pay into the EU budget).
The floods in June and July last year, mainly in Yorkshire, Humberside and the Midlands were the worst for 60 years causing £3bn of damage and leaving 13 people dead.
A total of 44,600 homes and 7,100 businesses were flooded and thousands more people were left without power and water.
Nine months on the misery was still continuing for thousands who had not been able to return to their devastated homes.
So why is the government's professed commitment to prevent future flooding so miniscule in comparison to the funds it is prepared to lavish on the wasteful, audit-failing EU?
Are these the priorities we expect?
Ministers had claimed that the £800m earmarked for flood prevention by 2010-2011 (in contrast, equivalent to a mere
7 weeks of our net payments to the EU budget) would be enough.
But MPs on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (EFRA) have warned that the figure for government spending was "far less impressive under close analysis" and may be insufficient to deal with traditional and new flooding threats.
Last night the government announced £31m from the European Union's Solidarity Fund would be spent on the areas worst hit by the floods (not even two days worth of the NET amount we pay into the EU budget).
The floods in June and July last year, mainly in Yorkshire, Humberside and the Midlands were the worst for 60 years causing £3bn of damage and leaving 13 people dead.
A total of 44,600 homes and 7,100 businesses were flooded and thousands more people were left without power and water.
Nine months on the misery was still continuing for thousands who had not been able to return to their devastated homes.
So why is the government's professed commitment to prevent future flooding so miniscule in comparison to the funds it is prepared to lavish on the wasteful, audit-failing EU?
Are these the priorities we expect?
Labels:
flood prevention,
lincolnshire,
midlands,
yorkshire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
