© www.generalcomics.com Having described the Booker Prize as a marketing event, I feel I have to show a little humility today. I submitted a screenplay to a BAFTA competition recently to be told it didn’t win but the panel flagged it as, “having potential with an interesting point of view.” I am going to cling to the illusion for a few more days that this wasn’t a standard rejection and they actually meant it.
Anyway, my screenplay is a multi-cultural, coming of age, comedy drama (yes, you can make that many genres work together) involving the lack of hospital funding in the UK, which is what this blog is really about. For professional reasons, I’m reading around NHS Finance at the moment but won’t send you to sleep by giving you the details. Surprisingly, the difference between direct and indirect costs doesn't appeal to anyone outside the world of numbers. There is one fact though that you may find surprising.
The government pay for A&E services, based on 2008/9 activity. If attendances rise above this level, then apart from an inflation uplift, all that hospitals receive is 30% of tariff for the extra patients. Whether you look at this sitting down, on your feet or while doing a headstand, it doesn’t make sense. Let's say car crash victims arrive in A&E in 2013 and there hadn't been any local road accidents in 2008/9. On the face of it, the government would only pay for 30% of the cost in 2013. I’d like to think the hospital would accept all cases but medical staff shouldn’t be put in that situation. Next time you read in the papers about people being turned away from A&E, think about what might be going on. Hospitals can’t treat patients if they’re not going to be paid a fair price for their work. They’d soon end in deficit and be criticised for failing to manage their finances.
In the words of Rohini: If you’re sick, you should be allowed to see the doctor.
Anyway, my screenplay is a multi-cultural, coming of age, comedy drama (yes, you can make that many genres work together) involving the lack of hospital funding in the UK, which is what this blog is really about. For professional reasons, I’m reading around NHS Finance at the moment but won’t send you to sleep by giving you the details. Surprisingly, the difference between direct and indirect costs doesn't appeal to anyone outside the world of numbers. There is one fact though that you may find surprising.
The government pay for A&E services, based on 2008/9 activity. If attendances rise above this level, then apart from an inflation uplift, all that hospitals receive is 30% of tariff for the extra patients. Whether you look at this sitting down, on your feet or while doing a headstand, it doesn’t make sense. Let's say car crash victims arrive in A&E in 2013 and there hadn't been any local road accidents in 2008/9. On the face of it, the government would only pay for 30% of the cost in 2013. I’d like to think the hospital would accept all cases but medical staff shouldn’t be put in that situation. Next time you read in the papers about people being turned away from A&E, think about what might be going on. Hospitals can’t treat patients if they’re not going to be paid a fair price for their work. They’d soon end in deficit and be criticised for failing to manage their finances.
In the words of Rohini: If you’re sick, you should be allowed to see the doctor.
RSS Feed