Jeremy Hunt accused of 'grossly unfair' allocation of public health funding: London's wealthy boroughs have been given more money than poorer areas to tackle smoking and obesity
Some of England's healthiest and wealthiest areas have been allocated the largest amounts of government money to tackle problems such as smoking and obesity, in apparent contradiction of ministerial pledges that poor areas with much needier populations would get the most cash.
The City of London, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, well-off boroughs in the capital with some of the best life expectancy in Britain, will get the highest per capita grants next month when local councils across England share £2.7bn in public health funding from the Department of Health (DH).
The City of London will receive £192 a head, the highest in England, while Liverpool will get £87 a person and Manchester £78, despite being much more deprived. The City's allocation is almost five times that of the east London borough of Waltham Forest (£42) and almost three times that of the north London borough of Haringey (£67), even though both are much poorer.
The allocations seem anomalous, given the DH's insistence in January, when it announced that councils would get £2.7bn for public health work in 2013-14 and then £2.8bn the year after, that "funding will be specifically targeted, for the first time, at those areas with the worst health outcomes. This means that the areas with the greatest needs will receive more money."
The London trio's significant benefit from the new public health system has come to light through research undertaken by Labour MP John Healey, the former shadow health secretary. The boroughs occupy the top three places in a league table Healey has drawn up showing how much per head of population each of England's 152 local councils will get on 1 April when town halls take over responsibility for public health from the NHS .
Most of the councils directly below them in the table are poorer areas with ingrained health problems, such as Blackpool (£123) and Tower Hamlets (£116) and Hackney (£115) in east London.
Healey has written to the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, to complain that the allocation is "grossly unfair". He accuses Hunt of breaking his pledge to prioritise more deprived councils. "This indefensible funding system rewards affluent, healthy areas and penalises those who need extra funding the most," writes Healey.
He points out that life expectancy in Rotherham and Barnsley – his constituency covers part of both – for the average male is 77, eight years lower than the 85 seen in Kensington and Chelsea and seven years lower than in Westminster. Such figures, he says, show that Hunt is breaking his promise to give the poorest areas the most money.
Alan Maryon-Davis, professor of public health at King's College London, says: "Some of these allocations are clearly unfair, and counterproductive. It's postcode public health gone wrong – and the people will be the losers."
Professor Lindsey Davies, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health, adds: "Given that poverty causes so much ill health, it's common sense for more deprived areas to get extra support for their public health services."
The DH agreed its distribution criteria after taking advice from independent experts on the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. Each council will receive at least 2.8% more for public health than the local primary care trust did this year, with some getting up to 10% more because they have greater local needs.
Dr Janet Atherton, president of the Association of Directors of Public Health, says that the grants for 2013-14 are based on how much each area invested in public health programmes this year, "so areas that have historically spent very little of their PCT [primary care trust] budget on public health have a low starting point".
The real problem, she adds, is that the amount the DH gives of its huge budget to public health "is too small if we wish to have a sustainable health system in the longer term".
The DH said: "Every single local authority has received a real terms increase in its public health funding. We have made a commitment to move towards a more clearly needs-based distribution of resources for these services, and the allocations announced for 2013-14 and 2014-15 make significant progress on this." The Guardian
Some of England's healthiest and wealthiest areas have been allocated the largest amounts of government money to tackle problems such as smoking and obesity, in apparent contradiction of ministerial pledges that poor areas with much needier populations would get the most cash.
The City of London, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, well-off boroughs in the capital with some of the best life expectancy in Britain, will get the highest per capita grants next month when local councils across England share £2.7bn in public health funding from the Department of Health (DH).
The City of London will receive £192 a head, the highest in England, while Liverpool will get £87 a person and Manchester £78, despite being much more deprived. The City's allocation is almost five times that of the east London borough of Waltham Forest (£42) and almost three times that of the north London borough of Haringey (£67), even though both are much poorer.
The allocations seem anomalous, given the DH's insistence in January, when it announced that councils would get £2.7bn for public health work in 2013-14 and then £2.8bn the year after, that "funding will be specifically targeted, for the first time, at those areas with the worst health outcomes. This means that the areas with the greatest needs will receive more money."
The London trio's significant benefit from the new public health system has come to light through research undertaken by Labour MP John Healey, the former shadow health secretary. The boroughs occupy the top three places in a league table Healey has drawn up showing how much per head of population each of England's 152 local councils will get on 1 April when town halls take over responsibility for public health from the NHS .
Most of the councils directly below them in the table are poorer areas with ingrained health problems, such as Blackpool (£123) and Tower Hamlets (£116) and Hackney (£115) in east London.
Healey has written to the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, to complain that the allocation is "grossly unfair". He accuses Hunt of breaking his pledge to prioritise more deprived councils. "This indefensible funding system rewards affluent, healthy areas and penalises those who need extra funding the most," writes Healey.
He points out that life expectancy in Rotherham and Barnsley – his constituency covers part of both – for the average male is 77, eight years lower than the 85 seen in Kensington and Chelsea and seven years lower than in Westminster. Such figures, he says, show that Hunt is breaking his promise to give the poorest areas the most money.
Alan Maryon-Davis, professor of public health at King's College London, says: "Some of these allocations are clearly unfair, and counterproductive. It's postcode public health gone wrong – and the people will be the losers."
Professor Lindsey Davies, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health, adds: "Given that poverty causes so much ill health, it's common sense for more deprived areas to get extra support for their public health services."
The DH agreed its distribution criteria after taking advice from independent experts on the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. Each council will receive at least 2.8% more for public health than the local primary care trust did this year, with some getting up to 10% more because they have greater local needs.
Dr Janet Atherton, president of the Association of Directors of Public Health, says that the grants for 2013-14 are based on how much each area invested in public health programmes this year, "so areas that have historically spent very little of their PCT [primary care trust] budget on public health have a low starting point".
The real problem, she adds, is that the amount the DH gives of its huge budget to public health "is too small if we wish to have a sustainable health system in the longer term".
The DH said: "Every single local authority has received a real terms increase in its public health funding. We have made a commitment to move towards a more clearly needs-based distribution of resources for these services, and the allocations announced for 2013-14 and 2014-15 make significant progress on this." The Guardian
No comments:
Post a Comment