IOM DHSC & MANX CARE

[code99]

When Manx Care was formed, the highly-paid Manx Care Board signed up to the commendable aspiration of delivering ‘high quality’ health services for the Isle of Man. In their Mission Statement they declared that Manx Care strived to be one of the best healthcare providers... Manx Care seem to have assumed that as long as they did all of the hard work, the IOMG/ Treasury would give them all of the funding they wanted - happy days all round then? I am certain that the IOMG would like to boast about having a world-class healthcare system, but they were never prepared to pay for it.     

When this year’s Budget was decided for Manx Care in February, Manx Care were told by Treasury how much they were getting. In response to being told what their Budget would be, the Manx Care Board declined to agree that they could deliver everything that the Government wanted them to do. From memory I think Manx Care said publicly that they needed an additional £27m more than the Budget they had been given. This ‘political debate’ is now an ongoing politcal game, where the objective of the game is to blame ‘the other side’ for Manx Care’s overspending.

The Manx Care Directors, instead of stringing the IOM public along, should probably do the honourable thing and resign in protest, saying that unless the Government and the IOM public are prepared to accept cuts to front-line health services, the only option is more funding. But what would that achieve? For one thing it would alert the public to how serious the situation is. Once the public are given the facts, they will be in a position to decide who was responsible.

I assume that cutting front-line health services in order to save money is currently being actively considered. But that is not an acceptable long-term solution, nor is creating a two-tier health system/ society where only the better-offs can afford decent healthcare - both Manx Care and our politicians need to get a grip. 

[Moghrey Mie]

Maybe we should express our spending as % of GDP and as per person. Then we could compare with other places to see whether we are wildly out of step/ average or better than most.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Healthcare_expenditure_statistics_-_overview&oldid=625409#Healthcare_expenditure

 

[Two-lane]

Does anyone have the above data for the IoM?

[2112]

2 hours ago, code99 said:

When Manx Care was formed, the highly-paid Manx Care Board signed up to the commendable aspiration of delivering ‘high quality’ health services for the Isle of Man. In their Mission Statement they declared that Manx Care strived to be one of the best healthcare providers... Manx Care seem to have assumed that as long as they did all of the hard work, the IOMG/ Treasury would give them all of the funding they wanted - happy days all round then? I am certain that the IOMG would like to boast about having a world-class healthcare system, but they were never prepared to pay for it.     

When this year’s Budget was decided for Manx Care in February, Manx Care were told by Treasury how much they were getting. In response to being told what their Budget would be, the Manx Care Board declined to agree that they could deliver everything that the Government wanted them to do. From memory I think Manx Care said publicly that they needed an additional £27m more than the Budget they had been given. This ‘political debate’ is now an ongoing politcal game, where the objective of the game is to blame ‘the other side’ for Manx Care’s overspending.

The Manx Care Directors, instead of stringing the IOM public along, should probably do the honourable thing and resign in protest, saying that unless the Government and the IOM public are prepared to accept cuts to front-line health services, the only option is more funding. But what would that achieve? For one thing it would alert the public to how serious the situation is. Once the public are given the facts, they will be in a position to decide who was responsible.

I assume that cutting front-line health services in order to save money is currently being actively considered. But that is not an acceptable long-term solution, nor is creating a two-tier health system/ society where only the better-offs can afford decent healthcare - both Manx Care and our politicians need to get a grip. 

Instead of cutting frontline staff, why not cut back on management. I don’t know if Manx Care is infected with wokeness, subscribing to the political correctness theory etc, but if they have you can cut these non jobs as well. 
 

On a seperate note, Tim Glover MHK has commented that the tax rise to 22% has been a failure. He is right but wrong to demand an early HoK sitting, as it just won’t happen. He needs to work with other like minded MHKs to force the issue.

[WTF]

8 minutes ago, 2112 said:

Instead of cutting frontline staff, why not cut back on management. 

now go wash your mouth out with soap

[Gladys]

14 minutes ago, 2112 said:

Instead of cutting frontline staff, why not cut back on management. I don’t know if Manx Care is infected with wokeness, subscribing to the political correctness theory etc, but if they have you can cut these non jobs as well. 
 

On a seperate note, Tim Glover MHK has commented that the tax rise to 22% has been a failure. He is right but wrong to demand an early HoK sitting, as it just won’t happen. He needs to work with other like minded MHKs to force the issue.

How many calls have we had for a return of HoK/Tynwald in the past few weeks? 

 

[Non-Believer]

Only a couple of months ago Alf C was reassuring us and his querying MHKs that there were no matters for concern in Govt/PS headcount and payroll. Now it would appear that he's about to make an announcement to the contrary.

Either he was wrong before or he's wrong now but he can't have it both ways.

Or he's lost the plot. If indeed he ever had it.

[Two-lane]

1 hour ago, Moghrey Mie said:

Maybe we should express our spending as % of GDP and as per person. Then we could compare with other places to see whether we are wildly out of step/ average or better than most.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Healthcare_expenditure_statistics_-_overview&oldid=625409#Healthcare_expenditure

Figures from ChatGPT:

Population: 84520

GDP 2023: £6.34 billion

Year - expenditure (millions) - per person - % of GDP

2023  £282.9 3347 4%

2024 £346.8 4103 5%

Note that in the above document, Germany (and others) it is ~10% of GDP.

 

[Fred the shred]

I think Manx Care is underfunded, I get a lot of care from Nobles and am grateful and usually meet quite a few people I know who are in a similar age group.    People are living longer and are living more active lives now, so many people I know have had knee or hip operations as well as people being treated for other illnesses that are ongoing.   Years ago old people were mostly looked after by family and if they were ill they just sat in a chair with a couple of sticks until they died now there is more treatment for illnesses and the care is so much better.   Scans didn’t exist now they do and they save lives for young and old but they cost money now doctors use bloods to diagnose many diseases that clinic is always busy, costs money.    A friend went away privately to have a hip operation it cost £14,000 so you can reckon every hip op on the NHS will cost the hospital perhaps £10,000 and over the year that adds up.    I think our expectations are high but willingness to give Manx Care the money to meet these expectations is not there.

[cissolt]

The biggest issue appears to be recruitment, which is hindered by the disaster that was Brexit.

We had grand contingency plans for a post Brexit world, govt correctly identified recruitment and cost of drugs would be a problem.  When will the Brexit contingency plan be implemented?

[Moghrey Mie]

2 hours ago, Two-lane said:

Figures from ChatGPT:

Population: 84520

GDP 2023: £6.34 billion

Year - expenditure (millions) - per person - % of GDP

2023  £282.9 3347 4%

2024 £346.8 4103 5%

Note that in the above document, Germany (and others) it is ~10% of GDP.

 

So underfunding could be a big part of the problem-about half what it should be?

[Happier diner]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

How many calls have we had for a return of HoK/Tynwald in the past few weeks? 

 

7

[FANDL]

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Only a couple of months ago Alf C was reassuring us and his querying MHKs that there were no matters for concern in Govt/PS headcount and payroll. Now it would appear that he's about to make an announcement to the contrary.

Either he was wrong before or he's wrong now but he can't have it both ways.

Or he's lost the plot. If indeed he ever had it.

Or you accept that the 2% tax increase was a test case for the public sector and Treasury. They thought that people would be happy to pay more taxes if it was ring fenced for health (because we are all frightened of dying and not getting support). But it’s now been proven that only 6 months after a £40M+ increase funded by a tax increase on low paid workers that they are now projected to be another £18M in the red. This had to happen as these overspends are happening all over government. If health had got away with doing nothing and with the taxpayer meeting the short fall via a tax increase every department in government would have been next. First 2%, then 4% then 6% on top of the basic rate of income tax because they all got a get out of jail free card that stopped them from cutting their own cloth.

[Fred the shred]

Who are the seven I have only seen three.

[Roger Mexico]

6 hours ago, Moghrey Mie said:

Maybe we should express our spending as % of GDP and as per person. Then we could compare with other places to see whether we are wildly out of step/ average or better than most.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Healthcare_expenditure_statistics_-_overview&oldid=625409#Healthcare_expenditure

 

It's meaningless because our GDP is inflated by structural elements in the economy.  That's also why the percentages for Luxembourg and Ireland (at least) are so low in the article.