Why the NHS in Worcestershire would be better off under the Conservatives

In his first year as Conservative leader, David Cameron has made it very clear that his highest priority as Prime Minister will be the NHS. He has expressed his commitment in speeches and he has emphasised that the Conservative commitment is to an NHS for everyone, and not just to help a few opt out.

Here in Worcestershire we have been campaigning on this issue, obtaining thousands of signatures for a petition that will be sent to Gordon Brown, asking him to stop his NHS Cuts. With a PFI for the Worcestershire Royal Hospital that has been a disaster financially for the Acute Hospitals Trust, there have been knock-on implications for the Primary Care Trust as well.

The regular reorganisations of the NHS under Labour have added to the problem. Recently, the South Worcestershire PCT was merged into the Worcestershire PCT and this merger means inevitable distractions for all involved. For example, the secretary to the Chairman of this new body has now had to reapply and interview for her job four times in recent years.

When we are out collecting signatures for our petition, I sometimes get asked, “How would a Conservative government run the NHS differently?” My answer is very simple. We would let health professionals and health needs drive the process, not politicians. At the moment, money for the NHS is allocated from Whitehall using a flawed funding formula that emphasises “additional need”. This ends up sending more money to deprived areas, while sending less to more prosperous places like Worcestershire. That may sound fair - but it isn't.

Age is a much more important factor in determining how much money is needed for health care. In West Worcestershire for example, the average age of our population is higher than in most of the country. Why is age important? The costs of providing healthcare increase dramatically with age. An average person aged over 85 will need £2,799 a year in health spending, while a child of 5 should only need £269. Also, the other key determinant apart from age should be the actual incidence of the sort of illness that needs treatment - in other words, morbidity, not mortality. Labour’s formula uses premature mortality, not the burden of disease. We should spend money where people actually are ill, not where we think they ought to be ill. Following questions to the Health Minister Patricia Hewitt in the House of Commons this week, Conservative Shadow Health Minister Andrew Lansley wrote to her and said, “I have realised that you simply have no understanding of basic concepts in assessing need for health care.”

So a Conservative government would do three things differently in allocating resources. First, an independent body should be charged with allocating resources to each PCT so that funding meets the challenge of tackling the burden of disease they face in their area.

Secondly, where an area has health inequalities caused by high levels of smoking or drinking, these budgets should go to local Directors of Public Health, rather than to PCTs where, as the Chief Medical Officer recently admitted, they are “raided to solve financial deficits in the acute sector”.

Third, PCTs should move gradually to this new approach to ensure that no area sees its health funding cut.

The result will mean that a Conservative government will be able to make sure that Worcestershire’s health service receives proportionately more money than it receives under Labour to reflect the age and health needs of our population.