"Covid rising in England" - let's stop the fear mongering

[Whistler40145]

We could be a week away from the peak, maybe a little more or less either way.

Those who are keen to change our way of life and normalise masks are absolutely desperate to impose them in time for the peak, so they can credit a reduction in cases to the mass wearing of flimsy, loose fitting, ineffective masks.

We must not let them and we will not let them.

This is a divisive subject; the media know it is divisive so are keen for the debate to be had, to generate clicks/sales/reads/views.

I know Portugal are ahead of us and have hit their peak

 

[yorksrob]

Also, all ten Ambulance services are currently on the highest level of alert, down to Covid staff shortages and the heatwave.

I just want to point this out as people seem to think that lockdowns are just done because somebody wants them to be.

Don't think anybody actually wants it to happen, but the NHS capacity issues are the only reason why one would happen. If anyone is interested there's a phone in on LBC about it right now.

The government has had over two years to get the health service in a position where can cope with a rise in ICU cases. We are not dealing with an unknown emergency anymore.

If the public go along with another lockdown it will simply give the Government carte Blanche to go on not having enough ICU capacity. For this reason, there is a moral imperative not to go along with any further lockdowns.

 

[Eyersey468]

The government has had over two years to get the health service in a position where can cope with a rise in ICU cases. We are not dealing with an unknown emergency anymore.

If the public go along with another lockdown it will simply give the Government carte Blanche to go on not having enough ICU capacity. For this reason, there is a moral imperative not to go along with any further lockdowns.

I agree. Sorry but if our National Covid Service oops I mean NHS still can't cope after 2 years of this then it clearly isn't fit for purpose and needs reform

 

[Mikw]

The government has had over two years to get the health service in a position where can cope with a rise in ICU cases. We are not dealing with an unknown emergency anymore.

If the public go along with another lockdown it will simply give the Government carte Blanche to go on not having enough ICU capacity. For this reason, there is a moral imperative not to go along with any further lockdowns.

They have, but real term funding was cut dramatically in 2010 for the austerity programme.

A few spikes where they were forced to pour in money since has not really helped that much.

We're reaping what we sowed.

I agree. Sorry but if our National Covid Service oops I mean NHS still can't cope after 2 years of this then it clearly isn't fit for purpose and needs reform

It's getting reform now, it's called "Better Care Together" which is a focus on more "at home" treatment and less ITU beds, working well isn't it?

Austerity from 2010 onwards has lead to this. This is what real term cuts do. Prior to 2010 there was a formula in place which guarenteed funding at a set level above inflation, this was cut back.

If memory serves me correctly they've been forced to plunge big sums in at two points since, but it's not really a fix for so many years of lower funding.

If you cut funding it tends to lead to this, you spend decades catching up just to get back to where you used to be

So if they say that nobody wants another lockdown then in my mind why encourage it? As pointed back with Boris last press conference wasn’t it Robert Peston badgering on about more restrictions or lockdown? (If this wasn’t as much as weekly question?). The lockdown questioning has only begun within the last month or so, I’m sure it was here in Scotland it got asked before England but in my mind it seems media are more than happy for it to happen again (even if you say they don’t, not personal here but it’s the vibe I get from the media in general).



I’d throw it another way if media are happy for this to happy then let them pay peoples salary etc similar to furlough, see how long it lasts!

BBC could let people not pay the licence fee for a year or how about Sky giving their customers free subscriptions? Let’s turn the tables… media pay the public or help with the government(s).

They're not going to instigate another lockdown because journalists ask whether they will lockdown or not. It's because of capacity issues in the NHS which had the best part of a decade of austerity imposed on it.

 

[DustyBin]

They have, but real term funding was cut dramatically in 2010 for the austerity programme.

A few spikes where they were forced to pour in money since has not really helped that much.

We're reaping what we sowed.


It's getting reform now, it's called "Better Care Together" which is a focus on more "at home" treatment and less ITU beds, working well isn't it?

Austerity from 2010 onwards has lead to this. This is what real term cuts do. Prior to 2010 there was a formula in place which guarenteed funding at a set level above inflation, this was cut back.

If memory serves me correctly they've been forced to plunge big sums in at two points since, but it's not really a fix for so many years of lower funding.

If you cut funding it tends to lead to this, you spend decades catching up just to get back to where you used to be

You can’t simply blame everything on cuts though. The NHS is highly politicised and extremely resistant to change. My wife has been heavily involved in attempting to implement change at two trusts and in reality ended up achieving very little because of this. Yes funding has been cut, nobody is disputing that, but the NHS continues to waste money in full knowledge of this fact. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

They have, but real term funding was cut dramatically in 2010 for the austerity programme.

A few spikes where they were forced to pour in money since has not really helped that much.

We're reaping what we sowed.


It's getting reform now, it's called "Better Care Together" which is a focus on more "at home" treatment and less ITU beds, working well isn't it?

Austerity from 2010 onwards has lead to this. This is what real term cuts do. Prior to 2010 there was a formula in place which guarenteed funding at a set level above inflation, this was cut back.

If memory serves me correctly they've been forced to plunge big sums in at two points since, but it's not really a fix for so many years of lower funding.

If you cut funding it tends to lead to this, you spend decades catching up just to get back to where you used to be


They're not going to instigate another lockdown because journalists ask whether they will lockdown or not. It's because of capacity issues in the NHS which had the best part of a decade of austerity imposed on it.

I don’t think we’ll see another one regardless, but how do lockdowns help ease pressure on the NHS?

 

[bramling]

The government has had over two years to get the health service in a position where can cope with a rise in ICU cases. We are not dealing with an unknown emergency anymore.

If the public go along with another lockdown it will simply give the Government carte Blanche to go on not having enough ICU capacity. For this reason, there is a moral imperative not to go along with any further lockdowns.

Absolutely. There seems little evidence of much having been done to get the NHS into a position where Covid is managed as “business as usual”. This is something the media should be scrutinising, but thus far they haven’t.

Let’s hope that once the leadership issue is properly sorted and Johnson is out the way (still a couple of months to go on that, unfortunately), this should release all the news time that the whole parties business has taken up, perhaps we might just get some scrutiny of other issues. NHS capability and the economy are the two obvious issues.

 

[43301]

Again, they are not on high alert because of covid or the heat. They are on high alert because they are badly managed & underfunded. Maybe as someone on the inside you might like to consider starting a drive to have the media go after the real problem?

It's not (just) underfunding - they also need to look at what they spend the funding on. Especially multiple tiers of management, and unnecessary posts like 'EDI Managers' which have appeared from nowhere over the past few years and of which there are now loads, on decent salaries.

 

[kristiang85]

K

It's not (just) underfunding - they also need to look at what they spend the funding on. Especially multiple tiers of management, and unnecessary posts like 'EDI Managers' which have appeared from nowhere over the past few years and of which there are now loads, on decent salaries.

Many of these are on six figure salaries! How that helps patient care, I have no idea.

The NHS is not underfunded; it is just chronically mismanaged. But governments are forced to give yet ever more money to it to appease people, without conducting the root and branch reforms that are needed.

 

[duncanp]

The NHS is not underfunded; it is just chronically mismanaged. But governments are forced to give yet ever more money to it to appease people, without conducting the root and branch reforms that are needed.

Ssshhh!!!!

You should be burnt at the stake for such heresy, especially on the day after our sainted NHS was awarded the George Cross for "...keeping us all safe..." during the pandemic.

Have I overdone the sarcasm?

 

[Dent]

The NHS is not underfunded; it is just chronically mismanaged. But governments are forced to give yet ever more money to it to appease people, without conducting the root and branch reforms that are needed.

What is your basis for that claim? This is an often-repeated claim, but I have never seen a clear summary of the actual evidence on which that claim is based.

 

[duncanp]

What is your basis for that claim? This is an often-repeated claim, but I have never seen a clear summary of the actual evidence on which that claim is based.

You might just as well say that those who claim the NHS is "underfunded" need to specify exactly how much more money it needs before it is no longer "underfunded".

I would suggest getting rid of a few layers of management and useless "diversity consultants" for start.

 

[MikeWM]

I finally managed to get up early enough to use my GP surgery *online* 'ask the doctor' service, which was open today between 0730 and 0847. It apparently closed 'early' because lots of the clinical staff are off with Covid, which seems to have been the case for the last week-and-a-half I'm not entirely sure why it needs to close at all, being an online service, and the service tagline is 'ask anytime, we respond in working hours', but here we are.

And the result : the doctor said I need to have a blood test. Which I specifically told the surgery was what the doctor was going to say 9 days ago, because the same thing happens every single year, but they refused to book me in for one until I'd gone through the almost-never-on 'online' system.

So I think they could try a *little* harder at efficiency, yes. There must be a better way than this!

 

[Dent]

You might just as well say that those who claim the NHS is "underfunded" need to specify exactly how much more money it needs before it is no longer "underfunded".

You are making the Burden of Proof fallacy. The onus is on the one making the claim to provide the supporting evidence.

 

[duncanp]

You are making the Burden of Proof fallacy. The onus is on the one making the claim to provide the supporting evidence.

But there should also be a similar burden of proof for those who claim the NHS is "..underfunded..".

 

[43301]

But there should also be a similar burden of proof for those who claim the NHS is "..underfunded..".

I would suggest that the best way to judge this would be to compare its level of funding per head of population with other countries which aspire to have a decent health service - e.g. most EU countries.

 

[Dent]

But there should also be a similar burden of proof for those who claim the NHS is "..underfunded..".

The claim made here wasn't that the NHS was underfunded, is was "The NHS is not underfunded; it is just chronically mismanaged". That is the claim which was made, so that is the claim which needs to be proven.

If (hypothetically) someone made a different claim, then of course the onus would be on them to prove what they had claimed. This is getting into the territory of whataboutery, none of this hypothetical burden of proof for claims which have not even been made changes the actual onus to prove the claim that actually was made.

 

[43301]

The claim made here wasn't that the NHS was underfunded, is was "The NHS is not underfunded; it is just chronically mismanaged". That is the claim which was made, so that is the claim which needs to be proven.

If (hypothetically) someone made a different claim, then of course the onus would be on them to prove what they had claimed. This is getting into the territory of whataboutery, none of this hypothetical burden of proof for claims which have not even been made changes the actual onus to prove the claim that actually was made.

Figures in these two links (from a few years ago, but they are the most recent I can find quickly) seem to show that UK health spending, assuming there haven't been any major changes in the past few years relative to the rest of Europe, is lower than most western European countries, but higher than most of those in eastern Europe:

Home

OECD's dissemination platform for all published content - books, podcasts, serials and statistics

www.oecd-ilibrary.org

How does UK healthcare spending compare with other countries? - Office for National Statistics

Healthcare spending in the UK compared with other countries.

www.ons.gov.uk

So is it underfunded? Maybe a bit, but it's also clear that it doesn't spend the funding sensibly in all cases. Can't find it now but I have seen figures showing front-line health staff to patient ratios, and the UK was significantly worse than much of Europe for this.

 

[duncanp]

Figures in these two links (from a few years ago, but they are the most recent I can find quickly) seem to show that UK health spending, assuming there haven't been any major changes in the past few years relative to the rest of Europe, is lower than most western European countries, but higher than most of those in eastern Europe:

Home

OECD's dissemination platform for all published content - books, podcasts, serials and statistics

www.oecd-ilibrary.org

How does UK healthcare spending compare with other countries? - Office for National Statistics

Healthcare spending in the UK compared with other countries.

www.ons.gov.uk

So is it underfunded? Maybe a bit, but it's also clear that it doesn't spend the funding sensibly in all cases. Can't find it now but I have seen figures showing front-line health staff to patient ratios, and the UK was significantly worse than much of Europe for this.

The amount of money a healthcare system receives compared to other countries is not the sole indicator of how well funded that system is.

The United States spends a lot more on healthcare, as a percentage of GDP, then many other countries, and yet no-one would claim that the system there is one of the best in the world. Quite the opposite in fact.

You have to look healthcare outcomes as well as the amount of money spent.

 

[43301]

The amount of money a healthcare system receives compared to other countries is not the sole indicator of how well funded that system is.

The United States spends a lot more on healthcare, as a percentage of GDP, then many other countries, and yet no-one would claim that the system there is one of the best in the world. Quite the opposite in fact.

You have to look healthcare outcomes as well as the amount of money spent.

Yes, that's true, but it's an important part of the overall picture. Other factors include ratio of front-line staff to patients as I mentioned above, and, as you say, outcomes - such as survival rates from potentially terminal illnesses and the like. The stats should all be out there for those who want to search for them and compare.

Part of the current issue is also the clear way in which parts of the NHS are working way under-capacity because of nonsensical Covidian rituals. For example, I had to have a blood test a few weeks ago. First appointments was in two weeks, and when I got there it was deserted. I was very early arriving, but only saw one person leaving and another arrived just as I left, despite the fact that I was in the waiting room for quite a while. There were two nurses there. In the time I was waiting they could have taken half a dozen blood samples, and in the past probably would have done. The full ritual performance was in place too, of course - chairs spaced out in the waiting room, hand gunk, orders to wear a face nappy (I simply said that no, I'm afraid I can't wear one - and they backed off).

 

[nw1]

I finally managed to get up early enough to use my GP surgery *online* 'ask the doctor' service, which was open today between 0730 and 0847. It apparently closed 'early' because lots of the clinical staff are off with Covid, which seems to have been the case for the last week-and-a-half I'm not entirely sure why it needs to close at all, being an online service, and the service tagline is 'ask anytime, we respond in working hours', but here we are.

Speaking as someone on the left of the political spectrum but also someone who believes that excessive concern about Covid is, in 2022, causing more harm than it prevents, the question we need to ask is, are all these absences with symptomatic illness? Or is an overly-rigorous testing regime leading to perfectly well people, doing vital jobs, being off work?

If the latter, then the question needs to be asked of the NHS: would more serious illness, on balance, be prevented by lessening their testing regime than keeping it? It's maybe not a politically correct question to ask but - if a NHS worker (of any description) goes into work with asymptomatic Covid and causes, on average, 0.001 cases of serious Covid, while if they do not go into work, on average, 0.002 cases of serious other illness result, then surely it's better they go into work?

 

[duncanp]

Yes, that's true, but it's an important part of the overall picture. Other factors include ratio of front-line staff to patients as I mentioned above, and, as you say, outcomes - such as survival rates from potentially terminal illnesses and the like. The stats should all be out there for those who want to search for them and compare.

Part of the current issue is also the clear way in which parts of the NHS are working way under-capacity because of nonsensical Covidian rituals. For example, I had to have a blood test a few weeks ago. First appointments was in two weeks, and when I got there it was deserted. I was very early arriving, but only saw one person leaving and another arrived just as I left, despite the fact that I was in the waiting room for quite a while. There were two nurses there. In the time I was waiting they could have taken half a dozen blood samples, and in the past probably would have done. The full ritual performance was in place too, of course - chairs spaced out in the waiting room, hand gunk, orders to wear a face nappy (I simply said that no, I'm afraid I can't wear one - and they backed off).

I had a blood test a week ago, and my experience was different.

Appointments were available within a few days, and there was none of that face nappy nonsense at the GP surgery either.

Just looking at the online booking system for my GP surgery, and there are face to face appointments available today (13th July) for tomorrow and Friday, and every day next week except Monday.

This is a far cry from six months ago when you couldn't even book a phone appointment in three weeks time.

If I needed a blood test, there are 3 appoinments available tomorrow, and several during the course of next week.

Which raises the question as to how some GP surgeries can provide an acceptable service and others not.

Is it just a question of funding, and if not what causes the difference in service levels?

 

[43301]

The question we need to ask is, are all these absences with symptomatic illness? Or is an overly-rigorous testing regime leading to perfectly well people, doing vital jobs, being off work?

If the latter, then the question needs to be asked: would more serious illness, on balance, be prevented by lessening their testing regime? It's maybe not a politically correct question to ask but - if a NHS worker goes into work with Covid and causes, on average, 0.01 cases of serious Covid, while if they do not go into work they cause, on average, 0.1 cases of serious other illness, then surely it's better they go into work?

Also worth pointing out that if they are 'working from home' then a 'positive test' using a dodgy test should not prevent them from working in any case.

The whole concept of 'asymptomatic infections' requiring hiding away is utterly ridiculous in any case though. We've never done it for colds or flu. How many people at any given time might 'test positive' for a particular cold virus or flu, despite having no symptoms? We've no idea, because quite sensiby nobody has ever tried to insitite such a regime.

 

[Bikeman78]

Ah, those geographically huge ambulance services. They're also not fit for purpose. My father-in-law took a funny turn earlier this year while we were eating out in central Liverpool. Ambulance took over two hours to show up. We may as well have carried him the hospital, it only being down the road. It looked bad for a while too before he started showing some improvement. Basically, if he was going to die, he'd have died.

An elderly relative had a fall a few days ago too. A two hour wait for her also.

Two hours is quite fast. If someone has a medical emergency on a train, the quoted waiting time is usually three to six hours.

 

[43301]

Two hours is quite fast. If someone has a medical emergency on a train, the quoted waiting time is usually three to six hours.

Probably be much quicker to keep the train moving to the next larger town on its route then stick them in a taxi from the station!

 

[kez19]

They have, but real term funding was cut dramatically in 2010 for the austerity programme.

A few spikes where they were forced to pour in money since has not really helped that much.

We're reaping what we sowed.


It's getting reform now, it's called "Better Care Together" which is a focus on more "at home" treatment and less ITU beds, working well isn't it?

Austerity from 2010 onwards has lead to this. This is what real term cuts do. Prior to 2010 there was a formula in place which guarenteed funding at a set level above inflation, this was cut back.

If memory serves me correctly they've been forced to plunge big sums in at two points since, but it's not really a fix for so many years of lower funding.

If you cut funding it tends to lead to this, you spend decades catching up just to get back to where you used to be


They're not going to instigate another lockdown because journalists ask whether they will lockdown or not. It's because of capacity issues in the NHS which had the best part of a decade of austerity imposed on it.

But as I say that’s the thing but unfortunately I believe they are instigating it, why do you think these so called journalists say these things? It’s more of a thrill to them (not everyone in media is like this I’m guessing), but surely people like yourself should speak out more? As it comes across as exactly what I and many others would say is media craves this and are happy for lockdowns but under same breath look for people to moan about them (bit of a contradiction the media are playing out for themselves is it not?).


But the other thing is though the NHS is the medias go to for all the problems but is being pushed upwards by media in appraisal (just like everything else I’ll expect the media to bring it down once more), the NHS isn’t any better but for the media to be it’s guardian is laughable, plus to me it’s seem more the media are interfering more into our lives and businesses.

 

[Bikeman78]

Probably be much quicker to keep the train moving to the next larger town on its route then stick them in a taxi from the station!

I agree, but politics doesn't seem to allow that. Proceeding to a station near a hospital would make sense, e.g Hereford or Wrexham General.

 

[MikeWM]

Speaking as someone on the left of the political spectrum but also someone who believes that excessive concern about Covid is, in 2022, causing more harm than it prevents, the question we need to ask is, are all these absences with symptomatic illness? Or is an overly-rigorous testing regime leading to perfectly well people, doing vital jobs, being off work?

If the latter, then the question needs to be asked of the NHS: would more serious illness, on balance, be prevented by lessening their testing regime than keeping it? It's maybe not a politically correct question to ask but - if a NHS worker (of any description) goes into work with asymptomatic Covid and causes, on average, 0.001 cases of serious Covid, while if they do not go into work, on average, 0.002 cases of serious other illness result, then surely it's better they go into work?

I agree entirely, but I do wonder in this particular case whether that's just a bit of an excuse and they have a severe issue with staffing anyway.

This surgery has about 16,000 registered patients and 12 doctors. The website has an online table of which doctor is working and when - it shows that today a whole 2 of those doctors are working, one between 0800 and 1300 and one between 0800 and 1300 and also between 1600 and 1730. There is also a locum doctor working for 7 hours.

Next Tuesday, whch presumably isn't affected by Covid absences yet - unless the doctors are also psychic! - has just 2 working all day, with a further one just for the morning.

We may 'have' 12 doctors, but a quick calculation using that table shows that in the next week each of them is on average working slightly less than 1-and-a-quarter days - ie. the same as 3 doctors if they were working full-time.

I'm don't think that is a sufficient number of GP hours to cover 16,000 patients, especially as (this being Ely) there are a disproportionate number of more elderly patients who are likely to need to consult a doctor more often.

---

I had a blood test a week ago, and my experience was different.

Appointments were available within a few days, and there was none of that face nappy nonsense at the GP surgery either.

Just looking at the online booking system for my GP surgery, and there are face to face appointments available today (13th July) for tomorrow and Friday, and every day next week except Monday.

Now that they've finally been persuaded to give me an appointment for a blood test, I've got one for tomorrow at a time convenient for me, which is fair enough, but it should have been easier to get to this point in the first place.

Their online booking service used to be quite reasonable, but it was suspended 'due to Covid' (of course) and oddly enough hasn't been restored.

 

[43301]

We may 'have' 12 doctors, but a quick calculation using that table shows that in the next week each of them is on average working slightly less than 1-and-a-quarter days - ie. the same as 3 doctors if they were working full-time.

I'm don't think that is a sufficient number of GP hours to cover 16,000 patients, especially as (this being Ely) there are a disproportionate number of more elderly patients who are likely to need to consult a doctor more often.

Part of the issue with GPs is that the profession has become very feminised (think it's around 75% of GPs are female now, and increasing), and a large proportion work part time due to having school-age kids. Think I saw that it was around 58% of GPs are now part time. If there was a more even male/female balance this would be less likely to happen to the same extent as younger blokes would be more likely to work full-time.

 

[duncanp]

Now that they've finally been persuaded to give me an appointment for a blood test, I've got one for tomorrow at a time convenient for me, which is fair enough, but it should have been easier to get to this point in the first place.

Their online booking service used to be quite reasonable, but it was suspended 'due to Covid' (of course) and oddly enough hasn't been restored.

Making it more difficult to book an appoinment helps to keep those pesky patients from bothering the GP or practice staff, thus improving their "work life balance".

There is no reason why an online booking system should be suspended because of COVID. But there again COVID has been used by many companies as an excuse for poor service (see separate thread) and will continue to be used in this way for some time.

"Ghost patients" are also used as an excuse. These are patients who are registered with the surgery, but don't exist because they have moved to another area, or have died. The GP practice gets paid a fixed sum for every patient on their books, and also the more patients on their books, the more they can claim they are "overworked".

More than 5m patients who do not exist are registered at GP surgeries

EXCLUSIVE: Crucial NHS statistics shows there are 61.7million patients registered at practices in England. But the nation's population actually stands in the region of 56.5million, according to the census.

www.dailymail.co.uk

EXCLUSIVE More than 5MILLION patients who do not exist are registered at GP surgeries: Campaigners demand action to stamp out scourge of 'ghosts' as map lays bare the scale of the issue​

• 61.7million people are registered at GP practices in England despite there only being 56.5million people alive
• It means there are 5.2million extra 'ghost' patients — who are either dead, duplicates or fake — in the country
• Surgeries are paid roughly £150 for every individual on their books, so there is a £750million notional cost
• But taxpayers don't pay extra to cover ghost patients, instead funds are allocated from a ring-fenced £4billion
• GPs claim the large number is partly caused by patients who 'don't always tell us if they are moving on'

More than 5.2million patients who do not exist are registered at GP surgeries in England, MailOnline can reveal as campaigners demand action to stamp out the scourge of 'ghosts'.

Crucial NHS statistics — used to determine how much money surgeries should be allocated from Government — show there are 61.7million patients across the country. But results from the 2021 census, which were released last month, states the nation's population actually stands in the region of 56.5million.

It means England's army of phantom patients, which has grown in size since NHS bosses pledged to tackle it seven years ago, is bigger than the entire population of Ireland.

Patients' rights campaigners have today suggested that practices could be deliberately letting their patients lists become overinflated to get extra cash.

Surgeries are paid roughly £150 for every individual on their books, regardless of whether they see them. It means the notional cost of 'ghost patients' — many of whom have either died, moved abroad or are duplicates — is in the region of £750million a year.

As well as the huge financial incentive, which saw the NHS's own fraud squad dragged in to investigate list sizes, critics fear GPs may be using inflated list sizes politically. Unions, including the British Medical Association (BMA), have peddled the rising patient-to-GP ratios as a means of demanding funding for more staff.

It comes after GPs last month threatened industrial action over a new NHS contract that would force them to offer appointments on Saturdays to help ease the current appointments crisis, which critics claim has overloaded A&E departments and led to late diagnoses of life-threatening illnesses.

Taxpayers don't pay extra to cover ghost patients, instead funds are allocated from a ring-fenced £4billion 'global sum payments' budget operated by NHS England.

But campaigners say the £750million is still an 'astonishing' amount of money that is being wrongly allocated. The annual funds could be used pay for around 7,500 extra GPs.

MailOnline's analysis of NHS data shows patient lists are nearly a quarter larger than the estimated populations in some parts of the country.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates around 2.1million people live in the area covered by North West London clinical commissioning group (CCG) but more than 2.7million patients are registered at GPs in the area as of June 2022, according to NHS Digital.

This means around 23.9 per cent of the entire list could be ghost patients who are listed but do not actually live in the area.

North West London was followed by Blackpool CCG (21.7 per cent), Manchester CCG (20.7 per cent) and Blackburn with Darwen CCG (17.3 per cent).

Our probe revealed that 25 out of England's 106 CCGs had patient lists at least 10 per cent larger than population sizes.

The ONS estimates come from 2020 to 2021, while patient list sizes are registered in June 2022, meaning there is likely to be some discrepancy in where people are living now.

And the large number of lives lost during the Covid pandemic means patient list sizes are likely to be greater than the amount of people who are still alive because of the time it takes to deregister dead patients.

Ghost patients have been a scourge of the health service for decades, warranting front page headlines and even an investigation from the NHS's own fraud team.

Authorities brought in scandal-hit outsourcing firm Capita to stamp down on the issue in 2015 (when there were roughly 3m ghost patients) but it has since got even worse.

The firm was contracted to vet GP lists and remove patients who could no longer attend the practice. But its work was put on hold until 2018 because of budget cuts. Its annual cleansing was switched to every three years instead, checking details of all patients registered as being over 100 to check if they are still alive.

It will also go through patients aged 16 recorded as living alone, those living in demolished properties and those living in student accommodation for more than four years to see if they should still be on lists.

Capita is continuing to look into surgery lists now to produce a review that will help redistribute funds away from surgeries benefitting from large numbers of ghost patients.

The NHS Counter Fraud Authority revealed it was formally investigating suspicions that GPs were claiming for non-existent patients in June 2019.

The Royal College of GPs (RCGP) and the British Medical Association slammed any suggestions of fraud. Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard, then-chair of the RCGP, branded the probe 'shocking' and insisted the issue was 'nothing sinister'.

Studies have shown a third of ghost patients are duplications, like students registered in two areas at once. Others can be patients who have died and not deregistered as well as children who split their time between their parents.

Investigators claimed, however, they had noticed suspicious anomalies when they opened the formal probe. They believed a small number of GPs deliberately kept names on their lists, but most were simply failing to prioritise the issues.

The RCGP argued that ghost patients were merely a result of record management issues, saying that staff have too much work on their plates and need better IT systems to address ghost patients quicker.

MailOnline was told the fraud investigation was halted early last year, in part due to pressures caused by the Covid pandemic. The NHS is not considering reopening the investigation — although this could change if its 'intelligence picture or priorities shift'.

 

[greyman42]

But it's not a bad question to ask the prospective PM's. A lot of them are going for the ERG support and they famously dismiss experts and forecasts.

See post 605.