Yes, I do. The fact that so many PCTs have been on "turnaround" and
yet their SHA's have generated massive surpluses (which , lets not
forget, are actually underspends, not surpluses) is appalling.
On 23/11/2007, Mary Hawking <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Does anyone else find the situation to be obscene?
> The HSJ has extracted data from the House of Commons library and SHA
> Board papers for September, and come up with the figures in the table.
> What I find obscene is that the SHAs in the areas known to have the
> worst health inequalities are predicting really massive underspends:
> even if they return the funds topsliced from PCTs (have they ever been
> known to do this?) to the PCTs, many of whom are still in turn-around
> and cutting front line services, Yorkshire and the Humber, East
> Midlands, North East and North West - the old industrial areas - and
> South West will still be in significant surplus.
> What services was this money supposed to supply, and are those services
> being provided? Or has someone in the DH got their sums wrong when
> calculating allocations?
> MaryH
>
> Http://shorterlink.co.uk/13275
>
> Projected surpluses
>
> SHA
>
>
> Topsliced from PCTs
> Total predicted surplus
> London £268m £135m
> Yorkshire and the Humber £85m £280m
> West Midlands £74m £102m
> South Central £68m £80m
> South East Coast £58m £60m
> East of England £57m £46m
> South West £46m £149m
> East Midlands £38m £114m
> North East £26m £142m
> North West £9m £350m
> Totals £729m *£1,458m
>
> Sources: House of Commons library Nov 07 (topslices); SHA board papers,
> Sept-Nov 2007
>
> *Based on data to September, estimates since risen
> --
> Mary Hawking
>
|