BMJ  2005;330:987 (30 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7498.987

News

2005 UK election special

The view from abroad

NSH Centre for Healthcare Improvement, New South Wales

The Australian analyst Ross Wilson thinks that Labour's plan to reward high performing hospitals could be as important as the Tories' plan to channel money into the private sector

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

When British voters go to the polls in May they will be able to choose between the parties on the basis of health policy posted on their websites. My discussion is based on the documents available on those sites and does not make any assessment of the likelihood of implementation of these policies.

All the three main parties presume that the current clinical performance in the NHS can be improved, although Labour asserts that current performance has already improved substantially during its tenure. Its claims are supported by data indicating better clinical outcomes for cancer and heart attack patients, as well as data indicating a significant increase in capacity through funding and increases in the workforce.

All the parties seem to ignore the longer term question of whether the NHS model of free universal access is in fact financially sustainable. This seems a particularly relevant question given that the cost . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

In praise of trade offs

Jane Smith
BMJ 2005 330: 0. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Graphic

Roger W Burns
bmj.com, 11 May 2005 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>