Fatal consequences of a lack of regulation | Letters

The government attributes 40-50,000 premature deaths each year to the effects of airborne pollution; there are some 1 million cases of foodborne illness, which result in 20,000 hospital admissions and 500 deaths a year; and up to 50,000 people die each year as a result of injuries or health problems originating in the workplace (Enemies of the state: the 40-year Tory project to shrink public services, G2, 9 May). Yet the rate of inspection and enforcement actions for environmental health, food safety and hygiene, and health and safety have all been falling. The statistically average workplace now expects to see a health and safety inspector once every 50 years.

In the name of cutting red tape, governments of all political persuasions have attacked independent regulation and enforcement. Budget cuts in the name of austerity have compounded the problem – especially at the level of local authorities. There is now a plethora of schemes to outsource and privatise wholesale some regulatory and enforcement activities. Private companies are increasingly involved in “regulating” either other private companies, or themselves, or both. Such changes mark the beginning of the end of the state’s commitment to forms of social protection put into place since the 1830s.
Steve Tombs
Professor of criminology, Open University

• Recent reports say parts of the British Isles are in the early stages of drought, with less than normal amounts of rain in the past few months. South-east England is particularly affected. But hasn’t our climate often broken the norms in the last 40 years? Past performance is no guide to what will happen in the future. It would be a good time now, in this pre-election period, to ask our politicians what contingency plans they have for a prolonged drought lasting two or more years. Our survival may depend upon them.
Geoff Naylor
Winchester

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

Fatal consequences of a lack of regulation | Letters

Baby boomers and the ‘live now, pay later’ consequences | Letters

As a baby boomer I am ashamed of many of my generation (My generation fought to be free. What happened to us?, 4 April). We are the luckiest generation of the 20th century. Born after the war into the NHS/welfare state, too young for national service, and the first teenage generation to have disposable income. We were witness/participants of the revolution of the 1960s. If we went to university, we had a grant. When we left school, there was almost full employment. Money has followed us as we got older. Yet many of my generation must have voted for Thatcher, Cameron and Brexit. The Tories should not have survived the 19th century, let alone the 20th, and now once again seem the dominant party.

I have voted in all three referendums involving England and found myself on the losing side each time. I voted out in 1975 but subsequently changed my mind when I found out that the only protection for workers during the Thatcher years was Europe. I voted for a change to the electoral system, and finally remain last year. When I was young we were proud of the welfare state. When did welfare get replaced by benefits and become such a dirty word to many of my generation? When will my generation wake up and remember their radical past and recognise that, as Harold Macmillan said, they “have never had it so good”?
Richard Ascough
Thames Ditton, Surrey

• Polly Toynbee wonders what happened to us. Being of a similar age, I also remember a 1950s childhood followed by the optimistic 1960s. The greater equality and better living standards that many enjoyed then may have obscured far more significant changes abroad. After the independence and partition of India in 1947, most of Britain’s vast empire disappeared between 1957 and 1968, while from 1961 to 1973 the UK was actively attempting to join the European common market.

The subsequent arrival of people from former colonies, of refugees from post-imperial conflicts, and then Europeans entitled to join them, all profoundly changed the daily experience of many urban citizens. Because we have not had to face our chequered history the way others (such as Germany) were obliged to, there is little collective consciousness of the close connection between revolutionary political events half a century ago and current cynical despair. That is what did not happen to us.
Dr Sebastian Kraemer
London

• Polly Toynbee asks why a generation that fought hard for equality and the liberalisation of attitudes is responsible for denying the same opportunities to those coming behind. I am a member of that generation and one who, along with everyone else I know, voted remain. I feel now that as well as a T-shirt announcing I am one of the 48%, I should have another to say I am one of those who have no wish to bring back the rope, cane or pre-decimal currency. Could it be that those who want to turn the clock back to the 1950s are simply grieving for their lost youth and hoping that by “taking back control” they can have the benefits of being young combined with the knowledge and experience of old age? Wave your blue passport in the air and jingle the pennies and florins in your pocket as much as you like, you will never be 16 again. We’re old, it’s not our time any more. To coin a phrase, get over it.
Lynne Copley
Huddersfield

• Polly Toynbee reminds me that I was born in the era of the ration book. I grew up in the era of live now, pay later. As we liquidated the empire and repaid the American lend/lease debt in its entirety, the “never had it so good” generation was funded by accumulating debt. Deregulation of the banking system allowed us to pretend debt could expand indefinitely. Politicians never found the courage to tell their constituents to live within their incomes. Austerity is the pay later era of live now.

Older people who want to bring back hanging, flogging and the rest of the 1950s nostalgia want to go through the last 70 years all over again because they cannot see any workable alternative. How we might pay for it all, with the debt already accumulated, is another matter. May and the Brexiteers are getting spiteful because they have seen the figures and know they don’t add up for everyone.
Martin London
Henllan, Denbighshire

• As I walked along Park Lane, as part of the march for Europe, I remembered that 49 years ago I had been a few streets away in Grosvenor Square, protesting about the Vietnam war. I was amused to notice that half of the EU supporters were old enough to have been there as well. We were vocal then and now, but never a majority. Perhaps what Polly forgets is that our generation was not one entirely made up of hippies and beatniks; there were also the mods, rockers, skinheads and diligent conventionalists. I suspect that baby boomers’ attitudes have not become significantly more or less selfish.
Martin Cooper
Bromley, Kent

• Polly Toynbee is right to feel ashamed of our generation opting for self-interest in voting out of the EU. I try to cast the smallest pebble into the biggest pond by wearing an EU badge on my coat on all occasions.
Val Mainwood
Colchester, Essex

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

Baby boomers and the ‘live now, pay later’ consequences | Letters

NHS waiting lists and the wider consequences | Letters

As one of the thousands of people waiting for a hip replacement, I’d like to highlight some of the consequences of longer waiting lists (NHS axes key 18-week target for operations, 31 March). I am 66 and until last June was fit and active. I have reached 19 weeks on the waiting list and am hoping to get notified of a cancellation any day. I have had to give up a range of volunteering activities and also my fitness classes. The pain, despite medication, prevents me from getting out much and increases social isolation. I fear that even after my operation I will be out of the habit of being active and it will take a lot of willpower to get back to how I was.

Longer waiting lists will lead to us “active older people” being unable to undertake community volunteering. Has the cost of this ever been factored in? The impact will be exacerbated by the rising retirement age. Younger retired people will disappear from the ranks of volunteers. Many people delay seeing their GP until pain levels are intolerable. Those in the know will go early and pressurise GPs for referral for orthopaedic assessment, to get into the system. The local waiting list is based on time, not on need. The government needs to consider more sophisticated measures of need for elective surgery and to take into account the wider impact on society of longer waiting lists.

I feel lucky that a new hip is even possible. Had I lived in my grandparents’ time this would be a life sentence of pain. I would be willing to pay more tax to fund the NHS and social care. Time for government to grasp that nettle.
Sue Craythorne
Exeter

• In addition to the consequences of later retirement covered in Amelia Hill’s splendid piece (A world without retirement, 29 March), what about the holes currently filled by volunteers in a range of services? In my borough, Haringey, the parks department has only skeleton staff. Our unique nature reserve, Queen’s Wood, is looked after entirely by volunteers. Local parks and green corners are also looked after by an army of volunteers. How about the local food bank and soup kitchen? They are volunteer-run. And in many boroughs, library opening hours are maintained only because of volunteers. I could go on.
Alison Watson
London

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

NHS waiting lists and the wider consequences | Letters

Consequences of Skipping Breakfast

Some of us have a tendency to skip breakfast. Others do it because they are in an attempt to cut down the net calorie intake, too busy during the morning rush or just don’t have an appetite.

Although most Americans begin their day with breakfast, one out of 10, which is approximately 10 percents of the US population don’t, studies show. They didn’t eat or drinking anything before 11 a.m. for some reasons, including they were not hungry/thirsty or didn’t feel like eating or drinking. Other reasons they skipped breakfast are that they didn’t have time and were too busy.

Despite some reports, on the other hand, a vast majority of studies have shown that eating breakfast is important for good health.

The rest of this article discusses major side effects of skipping breakfast.

Higher risk of heart disease

A study from Harvard University found that men who skipped breakfast had a 27 percent greater risk of heart attack or death from coronary than those who did eat a morning meal.

Although they didn’t pinpoint a causal relationship, the authors believe that remaining in a fasting state for longer can cause metabolic changes, which may eventually induce a variety of chronic and degenerative diseases including heart disease.

Lead author, Leah Cahill, said in American Heart Association statement,

 “Skipping breakfast may lead to one or more risk factors, including obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes, which in turn, lead to a heart attack over time.”

Elevated cortisol

Cortisol is a stress hormone. Its levels are highest around 7 a.m. every morning. Taking breakfast will bring its levels down. Skipping breakfast would make cortisol levels remain elevated until you eat a meal.

At normal condition, your calcium levels in the blood are higher than in the cells. Chronically elevated cortisol levels, on the other hand, causes more calcium enter the cells that lead to higher calcium levels in the cells than that of the blood. This, in turn, leads to hypertension. Besides hypertension, skipping breakfast can make you anxious and jittery.

Diabetes type 2

A study has found skipping breakfast was associated with diabetes type 2. In the case of diabetes, chronically elevated cortisol levels do two things: increasing insulin secretion, and releasing glycogen from its storage to be broken down into sugar. A drawback of chronically elevated insulin levels is that it can lead to insulin resistant, consequently, results in diabetes.

So, skipping breakfast every day for many years is actually making your body to be exposed to chronic (long-term) stress. Stress, on the other hand, is associated with the increased of reactive oxygen species levels especially superoxide, which is associated with atherosclerosis. Blocked arteries coupled with hypertension, both of which started by skipping breakfast (as discussed in the article can lead to heart attack.

Nitric oxide is said to function as an antioxidant to superoxide, however, chronic stress causes nitric oxide production by the endothelial cells to decrease.

High cholesterol

As discussed above, there seems to be a link between skipping breakfast and elevated cortisol levels, which can cause stress to your brain and bodily functions. Studies have shown a link between stress (which can be caused by elevated cortisol levels in response to stress) and high  ‘bad’ cholesterol (LDL).

I personally believe that most articles you have read so far may have not explained the possible mechanism how elevated cortisol can cause an increased LDL levels.

A typical explanation reads like this one:

“……the body releases a hormone called cortisol in response to stress. High levels of cortisol from long-term stress may be the mechanism behind how stress can increase cholesterol.”

I have my own way of explaining it, which some of you might have already heard before.

Increased levels of superoxide, which causes a deleterious effect on many types of molecules of the cell membrane, in turn, leads to membrane structure instability. Cholesterol is the only molecule used by the cell membrane to strengthen its structure during normal conditions and when the structure is impaired after being attacked by free radicals such as superoxide (oxidative stress).

So, during chronic stress, more superoxide is produced by cells that can cause more and more cell membranes become impaired. As most of you have heard before that elevated cortisol cause the liver to produce and release LDL (‘bad’ cholesterol).

The LDL turns into oxycholesterol when it is oxidized by superoxide right after being produced in the liver or while on the way to the cells (to be incorporated in the cell membrane to strengthen it).

Other impacts

Other impacts of skipping breakfast include you may get stupid, get hungry and irritable, your energy dip and your metabolism may slow down. You may also have more cravings later, and gain weight. Hypoglycemia, headache, migraine, nausea, depression, sleepiness, unable to focus, gastritis, and inflammatory bowel diseases such as ulcerative colitis may also likely ensue.

Consequences of Skipping Breakfast

Residing with the consequences of assisted dying

While we completely agree that the ease of pain and struggling must be the priority when a patient is nearing the finish of lifestyle, and keeping a patient alive at all fees is not steady with compassionate care, we would like to counter some of Professor John Ashton’s assertions (Best doctor’s assisted dying contact,  2 July).

First, his remarks on the use of sedative prescription drugs at the finish of existence advised that the administration of doses that would finish lifestyle in a dying patient would not represent a major departure from current finish-of-life prescribing of prescription drugs provided to ease suffering. There is no evidence to demonstrate that medications used for relief of distress and symptom handle at the finish of daily life shorten lifestyle, and are not prescribed with this intention. To be assured of ending a person’s daily life with these drugs, prescribing practices would want to modify radically. Second, Prof Ashton voices his assistance for assisted suicide for individuals in the last days and weeks of daily life, but the clinical practice he describes appears to be a lot more in line with voluntary euthanasia, which is excluded from the assisted dying bill. The expertise in Oregon shows that the bulk of men and women who the provisions of the Death with Dignity Act are the much more “vigourous” terminally unwell who are not normally days from death. educed consciousness amounts are frequent in the last days of life, and decision-creating as nicely as the ability to get and swallow medication could be impaired.

We strongly advocate for compassionate end-of-lifestyle care, but argue that assisted suicide is not merely an extension of existing practice and ought to not be construed as such.
Prof Matthew Hotopf
Professor of standard hospital psychiatry, King’s University London Institute of Psychiatry
Dr Ollie Minton
Locum advisor and honorary senior lecturer in palliative medicine, St Georges University of London
Dr Annabel Price
Advisor psychiatrist in liaison psychiatry for older individuals, Cambridge and Peterborough foundation mental wellness believe in

• Prof Ashton suggests that the specialist equivalent of midwives need to assist terminally unwell patients and “if needed shorten the finish of their lives”.

A midwife, virtually “1 who is with the mother”, never ends a mother’s life no matter how unpleasant or distressing the birth. Prof Ashton, like several men and women, seems to be unaware of the massive numbers of medical professionals, nurses and allied overall health experts who have the privilege of getting “with the patient” at the end of life, and so act as midwives to the dying  in assisting to ease soreness and suffering.

I am disappointed that there was almost no media coverage of One Possibility to Get it Correct, the latest report of the Leadership Alliance for the Care of Dying People, in response to the Neuberger overview Much more Care Less Pathway. The alliance report focuses on enhancing compassionate care at the finish of life. It is this report that merits our attention rather than altering the law to allow euthanasia or assisted suicide.
David Jeffrey
Honorary lecturer in palliative medication, University of Edinburgh

• I believe the views of Andrea Williams of Christian Concern would not be supported by the majority of her fellow Christians, as most people, believers or not, do not want to see their nearest and dearest suffer a prolonged and painful death. This has been demonstrated in several pieces of study and surveys of public view.

While I don’t claim to recognize her religious beliefs, I tolerate them and accept that she has a right to hold them. What I assume from her – and other religions – is a tolerance of my beliefs, without resorting to claims that medical professionals will be “killing” sufferers. The problem is about men and women who are dying and in great pain getting given the legal appropriate to ask for help to die as swiftly as attainable. That support could, in theory, be provided by an individual other than a medical professional.

If Ms Williams and her supporters are happy for their lives to be prolonged when they are dying and in wonderful pain, that is their choice. But please will not impose your selection on folks who have a diverse view at the finish of their life.
Graham Ross
London

• It was misleading that your front web page was headlined “Top doctor’s assisted dying call” when Dr Ashton’s total interview was a balanced account of the public wellness wants affecting this nation. Assisted dying and the Falconer bill, due to be debated in the House of Lords later on this month, are firmly resisted by the other health care royal colleges (Dr Ashton’s group is a faculty of the Royal School of Doctors), and by numerous medical doctors who perform in direct patient care of terminally ill sufferers (in contrast to public health specialists).

There are serious hazards that this policy would be uncontrollable, major to “incremental extension” (to other classes of individual), and to implicit pressure on vulnerable individuals to accede to voluntary assisted dying. There is proof that excellent palliative care, in which the NHS is a planet leader, strongly mitigates calls for assisted suicide, which are commonly withdrawn when such care is knowledgeable.

The current law functions nicely, combining a firm steer against exploitation and abuse with permitted judicial leniency in the uncommon hard situations.
Peter D Campion
Emeritus professor of main Care Medicine, University of Hull

• Giles Fraser has given the identical sermon twice (Loose canon, five July 2014 and three Might 2013). He is taking part in God. He knows we have a correct to daily life but rules that we ought to not have a appropriate to death. He confuses alternatives forced on us by thoughtless care employees with personalized alternatives that we want to make ourselves. We can presently make private options, all carefully competent and countersigned, to refuse therapy to prolong daily life. The Mental Capability Act 2005 gives for this kind of advance choices. This legal refusal of therapy can previously lead to earlier death.
Chris Coghill
Oxford

• As a doctor I locate the accusation of attempting to “play God” offensive. Searching right after men and women who are suffering, particularly at the end of their lives, I see no God that is compassionate or just.
Dr Jacinta Derks
Rowlands Castle, Hampshire

• As a retired GP I was pleased to see Prof Ashton’s thoughtful help for assisted dying. I was unsure about this concern until it impacted my family members. Last year my mother, absolutely immobile, in finish-stage heart failure and with serious and agonizing ulcers, decided she could not cope with her daily life any longer. he chose to starve herself to death. It took over two weeks and was horrendous for her and everybody caring for her. Certainly a far more humane strategy would have been to support her decision and assist her on her way.
Alex Booth
Bath

• The discussion close to Lord Falconer’s bill on assisted dying has been created even more challenging by the careless use of words which may be etymologically appropriate but have widely differing connotations. It would be beneficial to assign more specific meanings to the terms assisted dying, assisted suicide, killing and euthanasia, so that we can at least agree on what we are talking about.

The word “kill” has no spot in this debate – killing is what Dr Harold Shipman did. “Suicide” typically has overtones of personalized tragedy but does not apply to a timely finish to a terminal illness. “Assisted suicide” is the suitable term for a mentally competent individual with unbearable but non-terminal bodily disability who seeks aid to die. “Euthanasia” ought to be reserved for conditions the place the individual has in no way been, or is not now, competent to request and consent to assisted dying. The term “assisted dying” in Lord Falconer’s bill refers only to grownup individuals who know they are dying, and are competent to make a decision about and participate in energetic measures in ending their life. Neither “assisted suicide” nor “euthanasia” as defined right here are envisaged in this bill.

Those opposing Lord Falconer’s bill cite the difficulty of protecting vulnerable individuals but there would be much more safety for individuals if the legality or otherwise of assisting a certain personal to die have been to be established ahead of that help is given, rather than right after the death. Wellness pros, and palliative care specialists in specific, would be protected from complaints by the deceased’s family members.

Lord Falconer’s bill will end result in a robust legal framework to exchange the recommendations set out in 2010 by Keir Starmer, the then director of public prosecutions.
Professor Sir David Hall
Sheffield

• Andrea Williams appears to be missing the point. The individuals concerned are not “getting killed” they are dying, and wish to cut quick the suffering they are enduring. To do this they require access to medicines that medical professionals have chosen to make obtainable only on healthcare prescription. Assisted dying is what it says: the patient self-administers medication that a physician makes available to him or her.
Elizabeth Brown
Harrogate

• Professor John Ashton sums up the emotions and wishes of so many people living with cancer. How reassuring it would be to know that a sort medical professional would be prepared to end the patient’s struggling when shut to death, without worry of prosecution. Having lately moved home, and been diagnosed with cancer, I hope to kind this kind of a connection with my medical doctor. Even much better would be adjust in the law.
Marguerite Christmas
Stamford, Lincolnshire

• It is about time medical leaders came off the fence and supported the view of the majority of medical professionals and the public (from polls) who really feel the law on assisted dying should be produced far more humanitarian, and a appropriate of the person to figure out.

It is actually only since the Shipman case that doctors, specifically GPs, have been frightened to help their individuals stay as comfortable as feasible throughout their last weeks or days, regardless of whether or not this meant shortening their life. The consequence has been unnecessary struggling. If a patient’s thoughts is sound and he or she wants to finish their struggling by dying, and safeguards such as two independent clinicians authenticate the request, then a doctor need to be in a position to assist the patient.

If in excess of the final handful of centuries we have won rights over how we might dwell our lives , it looks illogical to all of a sudden take these rights away at the end of existence, due to the fact of an individual else’s beliefs that we may possibly not share.
Peter Brown
Newton Ferrers, Devon

• Professor Ashton’s suggestion that doctors must assist in ending the life of terminally unwell sufferers would accord nicely with a market place based mostly economy. I would not propose that such an concept entered the professor’s mind but it would assuredly enter that of other folks. Caring for the depressed and terminally unwell is high-priced each financially and emotionally and the simplest and cheapest response is to just dispose of this kind of. That is not the mark of a civilised society.

We currently have a government which has lower the NHS to, and sometimes beyond, the bone and this in spite of evidence to present that it is by far the most value-successful way to deliver overall health care. A civilised society ought to provide good quality care to people in this kind of want and not fob them off with cheap choices, even if it indicates, horror of horrors, that taxes require to be improved.

Beware also the law of unintended consequences, the elderly with lower self-esteem who come to feel that they would be much better “out of the way”.
Alan Pentecost
Maidstone, Kent

• I read through with excellent curiosity John Ashton’s post. I agree with every little thing he has said. As a physiotherapist who has previously worked in a hospice, I recognised that a primary perform of healthcare experts is to empower one’s sufferers. At times, the only empowerment left on offer is the decision of the exactly where and when of death and this must be afforded to our patients in their very best curiosity.

My mother died following asking for help in dying which was denied to her. Her final request to me was to help to alter “this ridiculous law”. From the change of law in Oregon, it is clear that sufficient safeguards have ensured that no patient is coerced into assisted dying: quite the reverse. Patient opting for assisted dying are informed folks who have also been causative in their personal lives. Why deny them the alternative of currently being causative in their deaths? I hope that the Home of Lords see fit to assistance Lord Falconer’s bill on 18 July.
Lindsay Flower
Abbots Langley, Hertfordshire

Residing with the consequences of assisted dying

Consequences of privatising cancer care |@guardianletters

Our fellows, the medical doctors who diagnose and treat cancer, have registered main issues with us about the planned model for commissioning cancer companies in Staffordshire (NHS cancer care faces privatisation, two July). We applaud the ambition of joining up care for a population larger than that typically served by a single NHS organisation and the want to focus solutions on the demands of patients. However, we fear that there could be unintended consequences.

Illustration by Gary Kempston GKIMAGES.COM

These changes could destabilise crucial cancer diagnosis and treatment method companies, and are previously major to organizing blight with regard to support enhancements. This could lead – in the quick-term – to worse companies for sufferers. This is a brave initiative but one particular that should be regarded a gamble in a well being economic system even now feeling the effects of the Mid-Staffordshire disaster. Lengthy-phrase arranging has proved an elusive goal in Uk public providers. The leaders of this initiative are in no position to predict, let alone handle, what might come about above the period of the 10-12 months contract – politically or financially. It appears unlikely that the architects of these alterations will be capable to see by way of their vision or to be held accountable for its consequences. What we could see is contracts that cannot be dismantled with no serious penalties. Higher clarity is essential with respect to the part of the “prime supplier” who will not in fact be supplying providers but managing services offered by other individuals.

It is clear that individuals on the ground who will be relied on to make this take place have nevertheless to be meaningfully engaged, and we have produced their issues acknowledged to Macmillan Cancer Assistance and NHS England who are foremost this initiative. Clinicians share the ambition for an integrated technique to cancer care and need to be more closely concerned if this gamble is not to fail.
Giles Maskell
President, Royal College of Radiologists  

• The Transforming Cancer and Finish of Life care programme in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent is an progressive and brave instance of the voluntary and public sectors working alongside patients, carers and health and social care professionals to provide the best possible outcomes for folks affected by cancer.

Inspired by the experiences of people with cancer or those who have cared for an individual at the finish of their daily life in the region, this programme will test an integrated method to the commissioning and management of care. By appointing a single organisation to take responsibility for managing the complete cancer care journey, we can demand actually seamless care, and make certain no patient or carer will get misplaced in a complex method. 

Clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and NHS England will appoint organisations with expertise in managing contracts, ensuring that all the services partners perform collaboratively all around each and every patient and will not change the organisations who immediately provide cancer care providers. Whoever is appointed will be topic to rigorous oversight and scrutiny for top quality, patient security and outcomes, no matter whether they are from the NHS, the voluntary sector, or from the personal sector.

At the heart of this programme is the want to truly reach and improve the lives of men and women affected by cancer. That is why Macmillan and our partners have manufactured positive men and women impacted by cancer, alongside clinicians, have been and will continue to be concerned in the programme at every stage.
Ciarán Devane
Chief executive, Macmillan Cancer Support

• Last night I attended and spoke at a guide launch of Mike Marqusee’s book The Value of Expertise: Writings on Residing with Cancer, in which he spoke movingly about his treatment method at Barts and his fears that the attacks on the NHS will imply sufferers in the long term will not have the exceptional care he has acquired. 

Absolutely the mixed CCGs in Staffordshire should have been speaking to their existing NHS hospitals and asking them to collaborate to offer a far more responsive and streamlined support just before embarking on this massive experiment with taxpayers’ money? In the earlier decade, the NHS (underneath Labour) made wonderful strides in strengthening cancer companies by means of networks this kind of as that in east London, but in 2011 Andrew Lansley withdrew funding for these regardless of their established successes.

Now we have groups of GPs, with no coaching in epidemiology, oncology or commissioning, generating strategies to invest millions on an untried technique with personal businesses, who have no expertise in cancer care, eagerly waiting to make profits from these sick sufferers. Similarly, the Cambridgeshire CCG, which desires to consider a radically distinct technique of care for the elderly, is organizing to commit above a billion pounds of our funds. This is madness, and the dishonesty of the existing government (“there is no privatisation” “there will be no best-down reorganisation”) is matched by the Division of Health’s spokesperson who explained: “NHS competition guidelines have not transformed underneath this government.” What about the Overall health and Social Care Act 2012, or the part 75 regulation that was passed this year? It is time for the public to wake up, stand up and fight for our NHS by lobbying their MPs.
Wendy Savage
President, Preserve Our NHS Public

• The finger of responsibility for the exponential privatisation of the NHS factors ineluctably at the Liberal Democrats, in distinct Nick Clegg and Shirley Williams. Given that this did not attribute in the coalition agreement, it ought to have been Clegg’s work to scrutinise Andrew Lansley’s white paper. Had he done so he could have halted the total scheme. Then Williams promised to have part 75 of the Well being and Social Care Act amended in the Lords to reduce, if not abolish, the necessity to tender for companies. This didn’t happen. But it is not good sufficient for Andy Burnham to say that the public has not offered the government permission to “place the NHS up for sale”. What is now necessary is a clear Labour election pledge to reverse all NHS privatisation since 2010.
Robin Wendt
Chester, Cheshire

• Certainly we should be concerned if cancer solutions are to be detached from the NHS and offered at the whim of private businesses? Well being minister Jane Ellison admits that the government has misplaced manage of the NHS so presumably huge businesses are chasing the NHS dollar with minor public manage. As a GP for virtually thirty many years, I know that patients are at their most vulnerable when they have a possibly fatal sickness, and are not in a position to make choices effortlessly or keep track of their care. Such patients particularly need to have to truly feel that the single goal of their carers is get them as properly as possible for as long as possible, and not to have at the back of their thoughts that organizations are creating choices for revenue rather than for them.
Dr Ron Singer
Chair, doctors’ part of Unite

• Will private contractors be paid on a charge-per-case basis, and hence make far more earnings if their individuals will not dwell for prolonged?
Dr Richard Turner
Harrogate, Yorkshire

Consequences of privatising cancer care |@guardianletters

Tiny State, Big Consequences: Will Rhode Island Be The First With a "Functional" State-Based mostly Exchange To Switch To Healthcare.gov?

Following the information of the federal government taking above the now-defunct Oregon exchange, Nevada defaulting to healthcare.gov, and now Massachusetts contemplating defaulting later on this year, the Ocean State adds a new twist.  A bipartisan bill to shut down the state-primarily based exchange and default to Healthcare.gov that is gaining traction due to the expense of sustaining a state model. Rhode Island is very likely to be on the vanguard of a second round of state-based mostly exchange closures as infrastructure cost gets far more transparent—and less appealing—to taxpayers and policymakers.

Federal taxpayers have shelled out more than $ 3.85 billion on all state-based exchanges, with a substantial volume likely going down the drain as state-based mostly exchanges shut. Nonetheless, these expensive taxpayer-funded wrecks could consider a couple of many years to play out as the Obama administration has allowed states to preserve investing establishment grant cash up to 5 many years, and is nonetheless awarding tens of millions of bucks to even the worst doing exchanges.

Right after Oregon, Nevada, Massachusetts and possibly Rhode Island, we could see state-based exchanges collapse in Hawaii, Minnesota and Colorado. Also of note are the several “partnership-exchange” states that have shelved plans to open state-based mostly exchanges: Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico and West Virginia.

HealthSource RI executive director Christine Ferguson may possibly be hunting for work soon if Rhode Island moves to default to healthcare.gov. Photo credit score: (AP-Steven Senne)

Rhode Island’s Difficulties Represent State’s Exchange Issues

Governor Lincoln Chafee (D-RI) implemented a state exchange (HealthSourceRI) by executive buy in September 2011, following authorizing legislation died in the Property.

The executive order enabled the state to apply for $ 163 million in federal exchange grants (of which the state has received more than $ 114 million). This amounts to a per-enrollee value of approximately $ 4,002, whilst the federal exchange averaged an approximate per-enrollee cost of $ 647.

Even so, it has been reported that Rhode Island has only spent $ 46 million of its establishment grants. Beneath this situation, the value per enrollee nonetheless runs 2.5x far more per enrollee ($ 1,615) versus the cost of the federal exchange.

Numerous considered the remaining federal income would be returned, but state officials are fighting to hold their hands on the funds, and to the dismay of taxpayers, it seems the federal government may permit such a move. But federal funds will run out soon, which indicates state lawmakers will have to discover a method to fund exchange operations or shut its doors.

Former Rhode Island Secretary of Health and Human Companies Gary Alexander laid out the budgetary issue in a current op-ed:

…according to the governor’s 2015 spending budget, $ 23 million [is necessary] yearly to operate and sustain HealthSourceRI, the state-based insurance coverage exchange. That’s not $ 23 million to aid low-earnings residents purchase well being insurance it is $ 23 million in overhead that would have been pointless had the Ocean State made a decision, as 27 states have accomplished, to depend on the federal exchange. These other states use the federal portal and pay out nothing at all.

Now, $ 23 million is a lot of income for a small state like Rhode Island. It is far more than we spend to run the Division of Motor Cars, three instances what the state budget appropriates for public libraries, and twice the volume needed to pay out this year’s installment of the 38 Studios bonds. If returned to our cities and towns, that $ 23 million would improve complete nearby aid by 20 percent. That quantity could also be allocated to reduce house taxes or the revenue tax or purchase a new laptop system for the DMV. Or minimize by virtually a sixth the projected $ 151 million 2016 budget shortfall.

For context, Rhode Island, a state with a population of 1.05 million, is seeking to devote at least $ 23 million a yr, whilst Massachusetts, a neighboring state with a population six instances as huge, has run an exchange with an annual price range of around $ forty million. But placing that comparison aside for a minute, it need to be mentioned that a lot of have questioned the return on investment of the Massachusetts exchange.

I just lately spoke with bill co-sponsors Rhode Island State Representative Patricia Morgan (R, Member of the Residence Committee on Finance) and Representative  Jared Nunes (D) to get their get on the problem. I also spoke with State Senator Lou DiPalma (D- 1st Vice Chairman of Senate Committee on Finance ) who sits on the committee that will hear the bill in the Senate.

Representative Morgan:

Rhode Island ought to not commit taxpayer bucks on HealthSource RI, due to the fact we currently face a $ 70+ million dollar spending budget shortfall, and just can not afford this type of paying. Our state requirements to take away this pricey potential expense, transition men and women to the federal website, and alternatively target on generating our state far more aggressive.

Representative Nunes:

HealthSource RI has been spending cash like drunken sailors. It is unsustainable the way it is. This is just income for the well being exchange, not for a single patient or care for a resident of Rhode Island. We are speaking about a lot of cash, a hefty line-item if it is included in the budget. There is no likelihood I can assistance pumping that volume of cash to run this method.

Senator DiPalma:

They [HealthSourceRI] have accomplished a phenomenal job in implementation, but putting that aside, $ 23 million a 12 months is a good deal of money, and I am not convinced that $ 23 million is even the proper number. I want to see the data and details that this is the most efficient and productive method to do this in Rhode Island. We need to see more choices, including defaulting to the federal website. If the present proposal was brought prior to me right now, I would vote towards it.

The Senator followed this up with a hypothetical– if the value ended up getting $ 25 million a 12 months, over 40 years that would volume to $ one billion in administrative costs,  he worries the return on investment would not be justified.

How Prolonged Can Federal Money Final?

In Chafee’s unique executive buy, he explicitly prohibited state funds from currently being employed to fund potential operation or the diversion of unused federal cash:

13. Financial Accountability. The charges and expense of establishing, working, and administering the RIHBE shall not exceed the combination of federal funds, personal donations, and other non-state common revenue money offered for this kind of purposes. No state basic revenues shall be used for functions of RIHBE, and no liability incurred by the RIHBE or any of its staff may be satisfied using state standard revenues…

15. Prohibition on Diversion. Pursuant to Reasonably priced Care Act S 1311(a)(three) and the prohibited utilizes of money in the Funding Chance Announcement for a Cooperative Agreement to Assistance Establishment of State-Operated overall health Insurance coverage Exchanges, federal grant funds acquired in the Fund shall not be diverted to routines unrelated to Exchange planning and establishment.

Even so, the Obama administration has permitted Rhode Island to carry above funds to next subsequent year, the 1st such arrangement in any state that has appeared in the press. And in a FAQ posted on-line by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Providers (CMS), the company indicated it might permit money to be used for up to five-many years:

Q4: What is the final day that a State can spend its award?

A4:  Grantees are encouraged to drawdown funding inside their price range time period (up to 1 year for Degree One particular and up to 3 many years for Level Two grants) nevertheless, at the recommendation of CCIIO’s State Officer and at the discretion of the Grant Management Officer, grantees could acquire a no-price extension that will enable them to commit funding up to the expiration date of the undertaking period.  At HHS’s discretion, a undertaking period can be extended for a optimum of five many years previous the date of the award. Note, however, that all paying of §1311(a) funds awarded underneath a cooperative agreement have to be constant with the scope of the statute, FOA, and terms and situations of the awarded cooperative agreement.

This provision and extension of funds seems to be in conflict with Governor Chafee’s executive order, and therefore opens up however one more legal gray region in ObamaCare. Yet it is important to bear in mind, it does not adjust the underlying issue of sustainability for a state-based mostly exchange. When federal funds run out, states even now have to pay for the exchange.

Tiny State, Big Consequences: Will Rhode Island Be The First With a "Functional" State-Based mostly Exchange To Switch To Healthcare.gov?

A New Report Paperwork How Smoking -- and its Consequences -- Has Become Largely Confined to the Poor -- A Trend Which Was Pointed Out Forty Many years In the past!

A effective write-up in final week’s New York Occasions describes how, fifty many years right after the initial U.S. Surgeon General’s report on smoking and health, the patterns of cigarette use by social class have shifted dramatically.  In the many years following Globe War II, smoking took hold among the properly-to-do in the U.S.  (At that time there was a renowned correlation between cigarette consumption and sales of silk stockings.)  Today, as the report states, “Smoking, the top result in of preventable death in the nation, is now increasingly a habit of the poor and the functioning class.”

More than the past half century, due to education campaigns by the federal government and organizations like the American Cancer Society American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association, warning labels on cigarette packages, enhanced taxes, and restrictions on smoking in public, the proportion of smokers in the population has plummeted from 50 percent to underneath twenty %.

The Times report draws on a new evaluation put out by the Institute for Health and Metrics and Evaluation, which evaluated federal survey data from 1996 to 2012 to generate smoking costs by county.  As the article can make clear, smoking patterns vary drastically by geographic spot and by class.  Poorer counties have seasoned a lot smaller sized declines in smoking than far more affluent counties.  Some of the highest charges are found in bad counties in Kentucky, West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. And these places skilled the smallest declines in smoking in excess of the 16-yr time period.

The authors of the Instances report Sabrina Tavernise and Robert Gebeloff visited Clay County in eastern Kentucky, which has the distinction of currently being the county with the highest smoking rate (among counties with a population of at least 15,000) in the United States: 36.7%.

Between people interviewed is a 51-year-outdated worker – captured in a striking photograph dragging on his cigarette – who says that several of his close friends have died of lung cancer, and that he has attempted to quit but so far has not succeeded.  “I want to see my grandson increase up,” he confides.

“Since 1997, the smoking fee for adults has fallen 27 % [for the country as a entire], but amid the poor it has declined just 15 percent… And amid grownups residing in deep poverty in the South and Midwest, the smoking charge has not transformed at all.”

The article paints a vivid picture of life in these isolated and impoverished locations. Some of these interviewed refer to the unusual pleasure afforded by smoking and imply that mere smoking is benign compared to the scourges of drugs and alcohol abuse in their communities.

All of this is presented as if the findings relating to the deep-going disparities in smoking, cash flow and education that translate into massive disparities in overall health outcomes were a new phenomenon.  And the post notes that “Health experts say this finer understanding of who still smokes displays that public wellness officials require to refocus antismoking efforts on the bad and the operating class.”

In truth, that the trend towards smoking becoming predominantly a habit of the much less educated and the poor was evident forty many years in the past!  Survey information going back to the 1970s showed that smoking charges among those with a college training have been drastically lower compared to rates amongst those who had not graduated from large school.

And in a 1974 paper published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, the authors Ernst L. Wynder, Lirio Covey, and Kiyohiko Mabuchi concluded, based on the observed smoking patterns by sex and educational degree, that, “tobacco-related illnesses will grow to be more and more much more frequent amid decrease educational groups than amid increased educational groups.”

In a 2nd paper published in the American Journal of Public Wellness in 1983 Covey, Margaret Mushinski, and Wynder concluded, “These findings stage up the restricted effectiveness of public well being schooling about smoking in reduced socioeconomic groups, and propose that in the long term, lung cancer and other illnesses for which smoking is a key risk issue will be increasingly social class relevant conditions.”

(Ernst Wynder was a key figure in public overall health who, as a healthcare pupil, in 1950 published the 1st research in the U.S. demonstrating that smokers had a drastically elevated chance of creating lung cancer.  Disclosure: I worked and published with Wynder for 15 many years).

In other phrases, the toll of smoking in these isolated, impoverished, and far more vulnerable locations has extended been foreseeable. And the inescapable corollary is that individuals have been dying of smoking connected-conditions at significantly greater costs in these forgotten areas than in the mainstream society.

Geoffrey Kabat is a cancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein School of Medicine and a contributing editor at STATS (Statistical Evaluation Services) at George Mason University.   He is the writer of Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Every day Daily life and the Science of Epidemiology.

A New Report Paperwork How Smoking -- and its Consequences -- Has Become Largely Confined to the Poor -- A Trend Which Was Pointed Out Forty Many years In the past!