Would the Tories scrap cancer guarantees?
The claim
“The Tories would scrap your right to see a cancer specialist within two weeks and your right to be treated within 18 weeks.”
Labour party election leaflet
The background
Labour party leaflets allegedly targeted at cancer sufferers made the front page of the Sunday Times today. A personalised mailshot showed a picture of a breast cancer sufferer, and details of how cancer treatment has improved under Labour.
The leaflets also warned the Conservatives would “scrap your right to see a cancer specialist within two weeks and your right to be treated within 18 weeks”.
Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley hit back at the claims, accusing Labour of alarming patients by “making up stories about what the Conservative party would do” and misrepresenting Tory policy in an attempt to scare people.
So what would the Tories do?
The analysis
“Greatly improved” waiting times for cancer diagnoses and treatment has been one of the government’s health successes, according to a report published today by independent health policy charity the King’s Fund.
Labour has waged a war on waiting times, drawing up a number of strict targets setting out how soon patients should be seen and treated. There’s little dispute that quick diagnosis and treatment of cancer can make the difference – literally – between life and death.
But the use of targets in the health service isn’t above criticism. In one particularly emotive example, watchdog the Healthcare Commission estimated between 400 and 1,200 patients may have died in Mid-Staffordshire because of an over-reliance on meeting targets and cost-cutting rather than patient care.
The Conservative party’s draft manifesto promised to “scrap all of the politically motivated process targets that stop health professionals doing their jobs properly”.
Instead, the party wants to focus on outcomes, such as higher cancer survival rates. The idea is to make NHS staff responsible for getting results, rather than focusing on the targets they should meet on specific aspects of patient care during the process.
The Conservatives confirmed today that the targets mentioned in Labour’s leaflets are on the list of those for the chop. So why did they hit out at the claims in the leaflets?
“We are going to increase the NHS budget in real terms and cut bureaucracy,” a party spokesman said.
“This will give us the capacity to ensure cancer patients are seen sooner and to meet the quality standards patients expect.”
The verdict
We’ve seen some Labour leaflets playing pretty loose with the truth, but on this occasion they’re grounded in fact as the Conservatives have promised to scrap Labour’s maximum waiting time targets.
As the King’s Fund report we quoted earlier noted, we do know that targets have “brought benefits to patients including shorter waiting times”.
However, it also sounds a note of caution saying “any future government needs to be aware of all of the potential consequences for patients of removing or reducing the number of targets.”
Scrapping targets doesn’t mean the Tories would immediately start abandoning people to longer waiting lists – the party says it has a different way of doing things that would be more effective – but then, that’s not quite what the leaflets say.
There are 14 comments on this post
The ‘guarantees’ are great and all, but why is the default position “Because Labour guarantee it, it will happen”, when time and time again we have been shown this NOT to be the case?
Just because it is an manifesto does not mean it will happen.
Remember the 80% of police time ‘guarantee’? That was just a statistical trick, with little substance behind it at all (which is why the Government advert was banned by the ASA).
Remember the waiting list promises? Sure, some waiting lists get cut, but only the ones Labour choose to measure. All that has happened is the longest waiting lists have been removed, but so have the shortest. On average, waiting times for treatment are HIGHER than 1997 across the board (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-treatment-waiting-times-rise-under-labour-791334.html), despite another Labour guarantee to the contrary.
Another which springs to mind is Labour/Brown’s “golden rule”. And we all know how that went… http://futurefairforall.org/post/513433023/gordon-brown-tinkers-with-length-of-paper-economic – another statistical trick, with nothing actually met.
How about the top-up fee ‘guarantee’ from Labour’s 2001 manifesto: “We will not introduce top-up fees and have legislated to prevent them”… only to introduce them in 2003, under a different name.
What about the EU constitution referendum, guaranteed in Labour’s 2005 manifesto? Another guarantee not met, due to minor technicalities (the rebranding of the ‘constitution’ to a ‘treaty’).
The Conservatives may very well be scrapping the guarantees, but it does not mean services will get worse and it certainly does not mean that cancer patients risk their lives by voting for anyone but Labour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is always disappointing to see the false information about Stafford hospital repeated.
The Conservatives wish to believe that targets are harmful because if fits their agenda.
It suits them find something that “seems” to support their arguement.
The 400-1,200 deaths at Stafford Hospital is a myth, and one which has been actively promoted by the Conservative party.
The Robert Francis report tried to get to the bottom of these figures. It has always been claimed that the 400-1,200 “excess deaths” were an extrapolation from the HSMR figures. Robert Francis asked Professor Jarman who is the spokesman for the Dr Foster company which produces the HSMR ratings to explain how the figures were arrived at. He said this was not possible because the figures are absolutely nothing to do with him!
Tha HSMR figures are never intended as a basis for Excess death figures this is not what they are for.
The HSMR figures are also clearly demonstrated by the Healthcare commission report, the Colin Thome report and the Robert francis report to be based on seriously flawed coding.
As an indication of the importance of this the figures produced under flawed coding were 127 – well above the national average. As soon as the coding was corrected this dropped down to 88. which is well below the national average.
The death rates in Stafford have remained well below the national average ever since.
The Robert Francis report has specifically stated that the 400-1200 excess death figures are unsafe and should not be used. The local press now understand this fact and do not use them. It would be very helpful if the national press would also understand this!
There were real issues at Stafford. There were many things that were wrong, and a great deal has been done to put the hospital on the road to major recovery. There is far too litttle credit given for this.
A major part of the problem is that the management statistics are not as helpful as they might be in letting management staff, boards, and monitoring bodies see what is happening. All this was clearly recognised by the Robert Francis report which is why a second stage inquiry has been called to sort out this aspect of how we manage our hospitals.
All this has happened as management systems develop. It comes from a base in 1997 when there was no coherent attempt to manage and compare different hospitals. We do not know how bad things were because it was simply not being measured.
It is legitimate to ask questions about what is the most effective way of manageing the quality of the health service we provide. Scrapping targets does not appear to me to be a useful contribution to this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
the situation and standard of Stafford hospital was an absolute disgrace and exacerbated by passing inspections .This government had no control in vital areas and any attempt to put a gloss on Staffords shortcomings is a disgrace and smacks of party politics
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Some months back there was a really good documentry about the NHS hospitals and why standards have dropped due to the target. I can’t remember if it was panorama or a CH4 documentry.
Anyone watching it would by know realise that there can be no justification for labour to reside over the NHS. Its their targets, mismanagement of the NHS that has lead to deaths.
I could not careless who is the next government but please, God please do not give us another 5 years of labour. This country cannot take their incompetence anymore.
Labour leaflets only show how vile this party is. Its a bullying tactic to induce fear about the other party. And we really think gordon is the man to lead the country on vital reforms like both houses of parliament? He and labour are the LAST party I trust with such an important task.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My friend died in Stafford Hospital 2 years ago after he had not been fed at all or had fluids for 4 days. This was after the Hospital was supposed to be improving. A high dependcy unit was staffed by 1 sister and 2 16 year old care assistants. No nurses and no student nurses. But I suppose they were meeting targets !! But Mike is dead !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I in 3 of us will get cancer, so any mailshot of 10,000 of residents is bound to mean that some letters will reach cancer sufferers. The older the age group you send them to the higher the chance that you will reach a cancer sufferer.
see http://bit.ly/cNckQL produce by cancer research uk.
Does this mean that parties should not send out anything that might alarm people on the chance that they might actually contact some-one who has a personal experience of that issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I also received not one but TWO of these cards recently. I was not so fortunate as the woman in the case described – diagnosed in two weeks and back at work in three. I have ovarian cancer and despite the wonderful Labour run NHS it was only diagnosed at an advanced stage (we had to go privately to get that far). For over 6 months I have been undergoing aggressive treatment including chemo and heavy surgery and still only have just over 30% chance of survival.
Nevertheless I believe that positive attitude DOES matter and throughout I tried hard to have one until this stench turned up. Twice. I didn’t need reminding.
Forgetting the cruelty; exploitation of personal tragedy, and the depression this has certainly caused me, the more important question is where did they get my name from? My actual name – ANGELA BROOK – was printed across this card on both sides – personally. It could not have been more targeted or more frightening. No-one else I know in my profile group has got one – but again, neither have they cancer.
I checked with my local Medical Centre and they were horrified, and swore that such personal information could not have come from them. Therefore it must have been from hospital returns submitted to a Labour run government department who passed it on to their Labour Party apparatchiks to torment people with at their lowest and most vulnerable.
I used to vote Labour – even worked as a volunteer at the Walworth Road HQ for the 1997 election. Not any more. What has been done to me and the many others like me who are battling this vicious, terrifying and terrible illness is despicable. God, are Labour THIS desperate?
One can only hope that as far as the bright eyed and bushy tailed Labour babe who thought this up, and who has never suffered cancer, or seen anyone loved suffer with it, is concerned, what goes round, comes around. In spades.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As someone who had to undergo surgery twice for the same procedure because of NHS targets culture that tried to economise on an anaesthetist, and then later got thrown off a hospital ward after surgery for a different condition when I needed to remain there – resulting in months of recuperation instead of weeks, also because of targets culture, I am no fan of targets. Management by outcome would have seen me properly treated (and ultimately at less expense).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] fact-checker blog is interesting on this (linked here) : The FactCheck Blog – Would the Tories scrap cancer guarantees? __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The leaflet reeks of Labour dirty tricks.Typical of a desperate government , who have [ploughed money into the NHS without any thought of control as to how it is spent, resulting in a burgeoning bureaucracy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] Tories want to scrap your right to see a cancer specialist within 2 weeks of GP referral”. Channel 4 Fact Check is clear about the veracity of this claim: “We’ve seen some Labour leaflets playing pretty [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] advantage of story. And that the press allow them to do it. The press also ignore the fact that Labour’s initial claim is correct. The Tories have promised to scrap Labour’s maximum waiting time targets. I would think [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Its all very well claiming that you’ll get a quick cancer diagnosis, but if you then have to wait weeks/months for treatment, or even worse, get told by NICE that “your medication is too expensive to provide” then the whole system is fundamentally flawed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s now May, Gordon Brown is still alleging that the 2 week guarantee would go, yet Cameron never responds. My partner has a rare form of leukaemia, he has the dubious privilege of being of ‘special interest’. I think the quality of care he receives will ultimately be of more importance than the outcome. One day they might be able to cure other patients with the disease, I wouldn’t want his Consultant to be judged for not being a miracle worker. I think it’s shocking that Cancer has become a political football, we deserve some reassurance that clinical standards can be maintained.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0