If you were in charge of the NHS what would you cut?

it's an interview question and I'm curious to see others views :smile:

Homeopathy - nil evidence for, lots of evidence against and in the world of increasingly evidence-based practice I think it's only right that evidence is used to identify areas of the NHS where savings can be made. Homeopathy costs the NHS £4-12m a year (so not a lot) but every little helps in times of austerity, and the continued running of purely homeopathic hospitals is madness considering there are A+E closures, ward closures, etc. around the country. It's madness that the NHS is paying millions of pounds for water.

This is a controversial, though.

Limbs off.

I'd make people pay to see GPs to clear up the backlog. ( A small fee - £2, so no time is wasted by those coming in for every little thing when no treatment is needed, it costs allot of money to have a GP see someone)
I'd use private contractors to run the ambulance service.
I'd cut wages across the board for higher up medical professionals, the NHS is almost the sole employer of doctors etc, so they have huge market power, this could be used to drastically cut higher paid professionals wages. Surgeons and anaesthetists would be cut first.
I'd introduce league tables for surgeons and anesthetists, allowing patients to choose who cares forthem ( for planned operations) then I would pay them per operation. Making operations voluntary of course.
I'd stop those paying over the 40% rate of tax from claiming for non emergency treatment. For example rich pensioners should pay for their own hip treatments, rich middle class families should miss a holiday if their kids need braces.
I'd stop paying orthodontists per each treatment they give out because they are dishing out braces willy nilly now.

Reply 4

Annie72

17

I'd get rid of those over paid managers, they do bugger all anyway!. I'd then employ more nurses.Probably could have lots more nurse for the wage of one manager.

Reply 5

Biblio

Original post by Annie72

I'd get rid of those over paid managers, they do bugger all anyway!. I'd then employ more nurses.Probably could have lots more nurse for the wage of one manager.

So naive "NHS is revealed to be the fifth largest, with 1.7 million workers across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland." The NHS is the fifth largest employer in the world, lol you need dem mangers

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 6

seaholme

19

Original post by Annie72

I'd get rid of those over paid managers, they do bugger all anyway!. I'd then employ more nurses.Probably could have lots more nurse for the wage of one manager.

If you knew any NHS managers you'd know they work like stink. It's a very stressful job and a very essential job. You're looking at huge organisations with massive workforces, lots of risks involved, large budgets, lots of logistics, a tonne of interaction with the public which means situations are constantly arising and having to be sorted out and which is expected to be almost constantly making financial cuts and savings at the same time as adjusting to the needs of the local population and making improvements in care. It calls for a lot of strategy, decision-making and leadership.

So I really don't see how managers are unnecessary. They're really important, otherwise things would just fail to function. Nobody else is going to do all the work they'd leave behind, that's for sure.

The recent Tory 'cut' of managers actually led to many being made redundant (for large redundancy packages) and then organisations realising they couldn't cope so most of them got re-employed by the NHS almost immediately via GP commissioning groups etc. Often for the same amount of money or more than they were paid before, plus they're already sitting on a massive redundancy pay-off. The moral of this particularly stupid story is: don't get rid of people you can't do without, because you have to pay to get rid of them only to re-employ them again!

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 7

BWV1007

14

My diet.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 8

Biblio

Original post by seaholme

If you knew any NHS managers you'd know they work like stink. It's a very stressful job and a very essential job. You're looking at huge organisations with massive workforces, lots of risks involved, large budgets, lots of logistics, a tonne of interaction with the public which means situations are constantly arising and having to be sorted out and which is expected to be almost constantly making financial cuts and savings at the same time as adjusting to the needs of the local population and making improvements in care. It calls for a lot of strategy, decision-making and leadership.

So I really don't see how managers are unnecessary. They're really important, otherwise things would just fail to function. Nobody else is going to do all the work they'd leave behind, that's for sure.

The recent Tory 'cut' of managers actually led to many being made redundant (for large redundancy packages) and then organisations realising they couldn't cope so most of them got re-employed by the NHS almost immediately via GP commissioning groups etc. Often for the same amount of money or more than they were paid before, plus they're already sitting on a massive redundancy pay-off. The moral of this particularly stupid story is: don't get rid of people you can't do without, because you have to pay to get rid of them only to re-employ them again!

that was labour not toryies

Reply 9

SilverArch

12

I agree with Beska, I'd cut homeopathy and any other alternative treatment for which there is no evidence that demonstrates it actually works.

I'd make savings in procurement - I think they are trying to develop a system to tackle this now? - that would make a lot of savings in the longer term. There's no reason two hospital trusts should pay a different amount for the same box of blankets, every item should be bought at the lowest price it can be got for

Reply 10

marm-alade

12

I'd cut all cosmetic surgery- unless in the case of major disfigurement (e.g. burns victim) or causes a major issue (you will develop serious scoliosis if your boobs aren't reduced, or a sex change).
I can't find the exact figures, but I know that this won't make too much of a dent, as it's not a major part of the nhs, but even so, we all have a right to health, and getting something cosmetically changed for something very minor ("underdeveloped" breasts) I don't consider health. It's much more important that our surgeons and money are being spent on the really important things like life-changing, or saving, surgery than these trifling matters.

EDIT: I now realize it sounds like I'm saying that a sex change will reduce the chance of scoliosis. I meant that a sex change is a HUGE change to quality of life, while it is cosmetic.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 11

Huskaris

16

The heads off of all pissheads who come into A and E on a friday/Saturday

Reply 12

user1-4

1

Original post by Huskaris

The heads off of all pissheads who come into A and E on a friday/Saturday

i want to say this, bus how would someone put this into a nice formal interview answer?
Do i just say, 'well, i wouldnt treat the alcoholics?'
Or is that too blatant and would make me look bad

Reply 13

FlavaFavourFruit

Cut the pay of the top nhs managers, they get paid crap loads...

but the money saved up from that alone is so small compared to the nhs budget lol.

Scrap homeopathy too, imo it's bull.

Reply 14

manu01

1

The budget that wards spend on agency workers. When a ward is short of staff, wards call up agencies to hire agency staff (who have to be paid more). Why not just increase the bank workforce and hence most shifts will be covered.
Bank staff get paid slightly more than normal hours but no way near as much as agency staff.

Reply 15

username1201943

19

A persons hand off. (See what I did there?)

Reply 16

ForestCat

18

Original post by manu01

The budget that wards spend on agency workers. When a ward is short of staff, wards call up agencies to hire agency staff (who have to be paid more). Why not just increase the bank workforce and hence most shifts will be covered.
Bank staff get paid slightly more than normal hours but no way near as much as agency staff.

Or bring back overtime. The staff on wards (most already do extra for the same amount) would be much more willing to cover shortfalls if they got paid overtime, would still be cheaper than agency staff.

Reply 17

St. Brynjar

18

Original post by seaholme

If you knew any NHS managers you'd know they work like stink. It's a very stressful job and a very essential job. You're looking at huge organisations with massive workforces, lots of risks involved, large budgets, lots of logistics, a tonne of interaction with the public which means situations are constantly arising and having to be sorted out and which is expected to be almost constantly making financial cuts and savings at the same time as adjusting to the needs of the local population and making improvements in care. It calls for a lot of strategy, decision-making and leadership.

So I really don't see how managers are unnecessary. They're really important, otherwise things would just fail to function. Nobody else is going to do all the work they'd leave behind, that's for sure.

The recent Tory 'cut' of managers actually led to many being made redundant (for large redundancy packages) and then organisations realising they couldn't cope so most of them got re-employed by the NHS almost immediately via GP commissioning groups etc. Often for the same amount of money or more than they were paid before, plus they're already sitting on a massive redundancy pay-off. The moral of this particularly stupid story is: don't get rid of people you can't do without, because you have to pay to get rid of them only to re-employ them again!