Health bosses deny Hedge End cancer patient life-prolonging treatment (From Daily Echo)

I think dave should have all his contributions payed back to him by the NHS if he dosent recieve this treatment. This is a disgrace to a man who has worked payed his dues. He is entitled to the best chances the NHS can give him. Really cant believe this country at times. Really not looking forward to getting old if this is the way we treat our own.

stmarysmush wrote:
I think dave should have all his contributions payed back to him by the NHS if he dosent recieve this treatment. This is a disgrace to a man who has worked payed his dues. He is entitled to the best chances the NHS can give him. Really cant believe this country at times. Really not looking forward to getting old if this is the way we treat our own.

here here,

money before people yet again, and it will never change while we are in a capitalist world.

stmarysmush wrote:
I think dave should have all his contributions payed back to him by the NHS if he dosent recieve this treatment. This is a disgrace to a man who has worked payed his dues. He is entitled to the best chances the NHS can give him. Really cant believe this country at times. Really not looking forward to getting old if this is the way we treat our own.

Agreed. But I believe the decision rests with NICE.
Another quango set up to over see the drug costs and budgets, irrespective of whether they can improve a persons lifestyle.

The fact remains that resources are finite. The NHS can't afford to provide all of the drugs and/or technologies that are available. So if you're going to provide cetuximab to one person, you have to deny treatment to others. It's not a perfect world.

If the blame rests anywhere, it's with Big Pharma. They're the ones that set these unaffordable prices, raking in huge profits as they do so.

And their standard excuse that they have to recoup huge R&D costs don't hold up to scrutiny. They spend more on marketing than R&D.

What dave needs to do is to look at the NHS constitution handbook. It can be downloaded from the internet.

Key word:- some-cold (think it's more than just a cold)

Redback wrote:
The fact remains that resources are finite. The NHS can't afford to provide all of the drugs and/or technologies that are available. So if you're going to provide cetuximab to one person, you have to deny treatment to others. It's not a perfect world.

If the blame rests anywhere, it's with Big Pharma. They're the ones that set these unaffordable prices, raking in huge profits as they do so.

And their standard excuse that they have to recoup huge R&D costs don't hold up to scrutiny. They spend more on marketing than R&D.

agreed on the drug company's over changing. but also could afford it if they done away with the trust board, there's over a million pounds in wages to the trust board. a board that only meets once or twice a mth.

If we can afford to give free treatment to all the europeans that have come here and put nothing in the system we can afford to give this guy the chance he needs. We seem to have infinite funds to keep adding people on the NHS from all over the world so there must be funds for him.

"National guidelines"
I really wonder how national they are. Would he be able to recieve the medication in Scotland or Wales? When will we be free?

Redback wrote:
The fact remains that resources are finite. The NHS can't afford to provide all of the drugs and/or technologies that are available. So if you're going to provide cetuximab to one person, you have to deny treatment to others. It's not a perfect world.

If the blame rests anywhere, it's with Big Pharma. They're the ones that set these unaffordable prices, raking in huge profits as they do so.

And their standard excuse that they have to recoup huge R&D costs don't hold up to scrutiny. They spend more on marketing than R&D.

I agree that resources are finite, but the whole 'free' health system needs to be addressed so that those who contribute to the system, throughout their lives, are not penalised by lack of money.
There are many areas where the NHS could save money, such as not giving free health care to 'foreigners'.

Before I am accused of being xenophobic, I must explain that I live in Spain.
I know and understand that, owing to my age, if I don't contribute to the Spanish health system I will not receive 'free' health care.
Yet the UK government seems to have an open arms policy to anyone able to walk into the UK, giving them health care free of charge.
It would be interesting to know how much is spent treating non British patients, who have never or will never contribute to the system.

Costa Baz wrote:

Redback wrote: The fact remains that resources are finite. The NHS can't afford to provide all of the drugs and/or technologies that are available. So if you're going to provide cetuximab to one person, you have to deny treatment to others. It's not a perfect world. If the blame rests anywhere, it's with Big Pharma. They're the ones that set these unaffordable prices, raking in huge profits as they do so. And their standard excuse that they have to recoup huge R&D costs don't hold up to scrutiny. They spend more on marketing than R&D.

I agree that resources are finite, but the whole 'free' health system needs to be addressed so that those who contribute to the system, throughout their lives, are not penalised by lack of money. There are many areas where the NHS could save money, such as not giving free health care to 'foreigners'. Before I am accused of being xenophobic, I must explain that I live in Spain. I know and understand that, owing to my age, if I don't contribute to the Spanish health system I will not receive 'free' health care. Yet the UK government seems to have an open arms policy to anyone able to walk into the UK, giving them health care free of charge. It would be interesting to know how much is spent treating non British patients, who have never or will never contribute to the system.

Excellent point. Well put. My point exactly.

southy wrote:

Redback wrote:
The fact remains that resources are finite. The NHS can't afford to provide all of the drugs and/or technologies that are available. So if you're going to provide cetuximab to one person, you have to deny treatment to others. It's not a perfect world.

If the blame rests anywhere, it's with Big Pharma. They're the ones that set these unaffordable prices, raking in huge profits as they do so.

And their standard excuse that they have to recoup huge R&D costs don't hold up to scrutiny. They spend more on marketing than R&D.

agreed on the drug company's over changing. but also could afford it if they done away with the trust board, there's over a million pounds in wages to the trust board. a board that only meets once or twice a mth.

You've come up with this claim before Southy, and failed to justify it when challenged.

The 'non-executive' directors only work a few days a month, and are paid a nominal amount for their time (~5k p/a). They act in an advisory and regulatory capacity, much like a board of governors at a school.

The 'executive' directors work full time, usually in excess of 50 hours a week, and receive salaries of between 100-200k per year. This is less than people at their level would recieve in the private sector, and their are only 6 of them. This includes the chief nurse and the chief doctor.

So where are you getting your figures from Southy? I'm getting mine from their annual report.

westsaxon wrote:
"National guidelines"
I really wonder how national they are. Would he be able to recieve the medication in Scotland or Wales? When will we be free?

The NHS of England and Wales covers, er, England and Wales. Guess what NHS Scotland covers?

NICE makes recommendations to both. It's up to local Trusts etc to decide whether or how to implement them.

At one time I was told by a GP that NICE would not allow new drugs out for up to 20 years. Time change and, naturally, we want a longed for drug to help some terrible ailment. I offered myself to trial a drug as I had nothing to lose but I received no response. There are many elderly or infirm people that would willingly put themselves forward. God bless you Dave.

goard

Redback wrote:

southy wrote:

Redback wrote:
The fact remains that resources are finite. The NHS can't afford to provide all of the drugs and/or technologies that are available. So if you're going to provide cetuximab to one person, you have to deny treatment to others. It's not a perfect world.

If the blame rests anywhere, it's with Big Pharma. They're the ones that set these unaffordable prices, raking in huge profits as they do so.

And their standard excuse that they have to recoup huge R&D costs don't hold up to scrutiny. They spend more on marketing than R&D.

agreed on the drug company's over changing. but also could afford it if they done away with the trust board, there's over a million pounds in wages to the trust board. a board that only meets once or twice a mth.

You've come up with this claim before Southy, and failed to justify it when challenged.

The 'non-executive' directors only work a few days a month, and are paid a nominal amount for their time (~5k p/a). They act in an advisory and regulatory capacity, much like a board of governors at a school.

The 'executive' directors work full time, usually in excess of 50 hours a week, and receive salaries of between 100-200k per year. This is less than people at their level would recieve in the private sector, and their are only 6 of them. This includes the chief nurse and the chief doctor.

So where are you getting your figures from Southy? I'm getting mine from their annual report.

go and check up for your self. if you cant remember whats been printed in news papers, then crossrefence, each hospital has a trust board with at lest 13 members, they only work or meet up once or twice a mth. executive directors only a some are on the trust board and those that are get paid to do the trust board job also.
to save money in the nhs we need to turn the clocks back to when the doctors and nurses controlled there hospitals, and done the employing for any admin jobs.

southy wrote:

Redback wrote:

southy wrote:

Redback wrote:
The fact remains that resources are finite. The NHS can't afford to provide all of the drugs and/or technologies that are available. So if you're going to provide cetuximab to one person, you have to deny treatment to others. It's not a perfect world.

If the blame rests anywhere, it's with Big Pharma. They're the ones that set these unaffordable prices, raking in huge profits as they do so.

And their standard excuse that they have to recoup huge R&D costs don't hold up to scrutiny. They spend more on marketing than R&D.

agreed on the drug company's over changing. but also could afford it if they done away with the trust board, there's over a million pounds in wages to the trust board. a board that only meets once or twice a mth.

You've come up with this claim before Southy, and failed to justify it when challenged.

The 'non-executive' directors only work a few days a month, and are paid a nominal amount for their time (~5k p/a). They act in an advisory and regulatory capacity, much like a board of governors at a school.

The 'executive' directors work full time, usually in excess of 50 hours a week, and receive salaries of between 100-200k per year. This is less than people at their level would recieve in the private sector, and their are only 6 of them. This includes the chief nurse and the chief doctor.

So where are you getting your figures from Southy? I'm getting mine from their annual report.

go and check up for your self. if you cant remember whats been printed in news papers, then crossrefence, each hospital has a trust board with at lest 13 members, they only work or meet up once or twice a mth. executive directors only a some are on the trust board and those that are get paid to do the trust board job also.
to save money in the nhs we need to turn the clocks back to when the doctors and nurses controlled there hospitals, and done the employing for any admin jobs.

I've just taken my figures directly from SUHT's annual report Southy. Of course executive directors are on the board for goodness sake, but no, they do NOT get paid extra for sitting on it.

You're wrong. Admit it for once in your life.

Stop just making stuff up.

Redback wrote:

southy wrote:

Redback wrote:

southy wrote:

Redback wrote:
The fact remains that resources are finite. The NHS can't afford to provide all of the drugs and/or technologies that are available. So if you're going to provide cetuximab to one person, you have to deny treatment to others. It's not a perfect world.

If the blame rests anywhere, it's with Big Pharma. They're the ones that set these unaffordable prices, raking in huge profits as they do so.

And their standard excuse that they have to recoup huge R&D costs don't hold up to scrutiny. They spend more on marketing than R&D.

agreed on the drug company's over changing. but also could afford it if they done away with the trust board, there's over a million pounds in wages to the trust board. a board that only meets once or twice a mth.

You've come up with this claim before Southy, and failed to justify it when challenged.

The 'non-executive' directors only work a few days a month, and are paid a nominal amount for their time (~5k p/a). They act in an advisory and regulatory capacity, much like a board of governors at a school.

The 'executive' directors work full time, usually in excess of 50 hours a week, and receive salaries of between 100-200k per year. This is less than people at their level would recieve in the private sector, and their are only 6 of them. This includes the chief nurse and the chief doctor.

So where are you getting your figures from Southy? I'm getting mine from their annual report.

go and check up for your self. if you cant remember whats been printed in news papers, then crossrefence, each hospital has a trust board with at lest 13 members, they only work or meet up once or twice a mth. executive directors only a some are on the trust board and those that are get paid to do the trust board job also.
to save money in the nhs we need to turn the clocks back to when the doctors and nurses controlled there hospitals, and done the employing for any admin jobs.

I've just taken my figures directly from SUHT's annual report Southy. Of course executive directors are on the board for goodness sake, but no, they do NOT get paid extra for sitting on it.

You're wrong. Admit it for once in your life.

Stop just making stuff up.

not all executive directors are on the trust board only some are and those that are get paid extra and that is a fact, the trust board only meets once or twice a mth that is a fact, many off the trust board do not work full time for any hospitals that is a fact. only some are. there is a number off trust board members that are on more than one trust and gets paid from each off them that they sit on.
the gh has a own trust has do amh has it own trust and both also belong to the suht. suht is only part off it all and deals with the training and research and specialist services, they also have a board off governers that are unpaid.
its not made up. there is more money wastage in the nhs than you relise. and its all at the top. and not in the front line, there is to many chiefs and not enough indians.

Costa baz, totaly agree with you, and I live in Spain and the service here as we have found will knock spots of the UK hospitals, and I dont think I have heard any hospital in Spain with MRSA they are spotless and the service and patient care is brilliant . I know from experiance.

why dont you amitt it that you are one off those who like to save the people at the top jobs and there wages for the sake off the front line staff and patient cost

I just don't understand why we work and pay in our whole lives to then be told we can't have life extending drugs. This is a shocking and very sad situation that this man is in and I really feel for him and his family. I hope he wins his appeal.

stmarysmush wrote:
If we can afford to give free treatment to all the europeans that have come here and put nothing in the system we can afford to give this guy the chance he needs. We seem to have infinite funds to keep adding people on the NHS from all over the world so there must be funds for him.

On the other hand, a lot of middle- aged and elderly Brits now live in France and Spain. where they get free treatment. It's not the young who cost the NHS the most but the elderly.

stmarysmush wrote:
If we can afford to give free treatment to all the europeans that have come here and put nothing in the system we can afford to give this guy the chance he needs. We seem to have infinite funds to keep adding people on the NHS from all over the world so there must be funds for him.

Actually a lot of money is spent on Friday and Saturday nights fixing our own.
.
If they were charged for their treatment, which is almost always due to their own ability to drink too much, then the money saved would allow the likes of NICE to expand drugs approved for use.

southy wrote:
why dont you amitt it that you are one off those who like to save the people at the top jobs and there wages for the sake off the front line staff and patient cost

You want to know where all the NHS' money goes Southy?

GPs.

Average wage circa 120k per year.
Average for a surgeon or a specialist medical doctor, circa 90k per year.

The waste is not going on top executives, whatever you want to believe. The Chief Exec gets around 190k for running an organisation with a turnover of in excess of £500 MILLION pounds per year. Show me an equivalent to that in the private sector!

And SUHT does not only deal with the "training and research and specialist services". They run orthopaedics, ophthalmology, women and children's services and more. These services are District General services, not specialist.

You're getting your 'facts' from newspapers. I'm getting mine from published accounts.

I know which one I find more reliable.

EU nationals are treated on the NHS under the Reciprocal Health Care Agreement in Europe.

The clue is in the word 'Reciprocal'.

No one has said that he can't have the drugs, just that he can't have them for free from the NHS. Either you pay for them yourself & live longer or you don't.

stmarysmush wrote:

Costa Baz wrote:

Redback wrote: The fact remains that resources are finite. The NHS can't afford to provide all of the drugs and/or technologies that are available. So if you're going to provide cetuximab to one person, you have to deny treatment to others. It's not a perfect world. If the blame rests anywhere, it's with Big Pharma. They're the ones that set these unaffordable prices, raking in huge profits as they do so. And their standard excuse that they have to recoup huge R&D costs don't hold up to scrutiny. They spend more on marketing than R&D.

I agree that resources are finite, but the whole 'free' health system needs to be addressed so that those who contribute to the system, throughout their lives, are not penalised by lack of money. There are many areas where the NHS could save money, such as not giving free health care to 'foreigners'. Before I am accused of being xenophobic, I must explain that I live in Spain. I know and understand that, owing to my age, if I don't contribute to the Spanish health system I will not receive 'free' health care. Yet the UK government seems to have an open arms policy to anyone able to walk into the UK, giving them health care free of charge. It would be interesting to know how much is spent treating non British patients, who have never or will never contribute to the system.

Excellent point. Well put. My point exactly.

I wonder how it was that, when I had an accident when visiting Portugal, my treatment was FREE under the reciprical arrangement.
Redback is correct.
The NHS has not got a bottomless pit of money and what money it does have cannot be spent twice.

Of course this is tragic. The costs of extending life by months is very expensive. Whilst this money is being spent there are those with long term diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis, Motor Neurone Disease or Acquired Brain Injury (amongst many, many others) who spend years waiting for appropriate levels of care. The burden on their families is beyond belief and physically and emotionally draining. It can last for decades. So, sad as it is that money is not available for expensive drugs to temporarily extend life, there is also insufficient money to give a reasonable quality of life to the severely disabled who can live for years. Life is a terminal illness. It is the journey that is important. A long life is a bonus. At the age of 63 I know I should have died 20 years ago only 100 years ago. I am grateful for modern medicine but I do have reasonable expectations of what it can achieve. I will die one day. My life has been full and rewarding. I have wonderful children and great family and friends. What a journey! A man can ask for no more.

Spot O'Bother wrote:
No one has said that he can't have the drugs, just that he can't have them for free from the NHS. Either you pay for them yourself & live longer or you don't.

True - but there is a catch.
.
If you start paying for just one aspect of your meds - all your care has to be paid for. In this case I reckon that if Dave paid the £32K fee ALL his other treatment would now be charged for - and that is likely to be at least as much again.
.
Anyone care to correct me?

Adrian Smith wrote:

Spot O'Bother wrote:
No one has said that he can't have the drugs, just that he can't have them for free from the NHS. Either you pay for them yourself & live longer or you don't.

True - but there is a catch.
.
If you start paying for just one aspect of your meds - all your care has to be paid for. In this case I reckon that if Dave paid the £32K fee ALL his other treatment would now be charged for - and that is likely to be at least as much again.
.
Anyone care to correct me?

As I understand it, you're absolutely correct.

I understand the rationale behind it, but in practice it doesn't seem fair, in my opinion. It's definitely an area that needs looking at.

Redback wrote:

southy wrote:
why dont you amitt it that you are one off those who like to save the people at the top jobs and there wages for the sake off the front line staff and patient cost

You want to know where all the NHS' money goes Southy?

GPs.

Average wage circa 120k per year.
Average for a surgeon or a specialist medical doctor, circa 90k per year.

The waste is not going on top executives, whatever you want to believe. The Chief Exec gets around 190k for running an organisation with a turnover of in excess of £500 MILLION pounds per year. Show me an equivalent to that in the private sector!

And SUHT does not only deal with the "training and research and specialist services". They run orthopaedics, ophthalmology, women and children's services and more. These services are District General services, not specialist.

You're getting your 'facts' from newspapers. I'm getting mine from published accounts.

I know which one I find more reliable.

and the pct dont do any thing then i take it, i get mine information from the people who work in side the nhs the news papers just point me in a right direction to ask questions.
there is a very differentral in pay's between gp's like mine only earns 65k per year and is often on call out 24 hours a day, she works one weekend on call out per mth.
you will find that suht specialist services include orthopaedics, ophthalmology, women and children's service and only run those specialist services to those dept. the pct is also involved in those dept.
and only getting one publish accounts from suht only gives you a very small picture off the whole thing,
go and count up all the trusts in the uk and how much they cost the nhs has a whole.
the nhs is not a business, its a state health care and should be run like one, its people first and money last.
could you tell me how many off your IN contribution go's to wards your personal needs in the health care and pension, I can and i dont even need to know how much your paying weekly.

southy wrote:

Redback wrote:

southy wrote:
why dont you amitt it that you are one off those who like to save the people at the top jobs and there wages for the sake off the front line staff and patient cost

You want to know where all the NHS' money goes Southy?

GPs.

Average wage circa 120k per year.
Average for a surgeon or a specialist medical doctor, circa 90k per year.

The waste is not going on top executives, whatever you want to believe. The Chief Exec gets around 190k for running an organisation with a turnover of in excess of £500 MILLION pounds per year. Show me an equivalent to that in the private sector!

And SUHT does not only deal with the "training and research and specialist services". They run orthopaedics, ophthalmology, women and children's services and more. These services are District General services, not specialist.

You're getting your 'facts' from newspapers. I'm getting mine from published accounts.

I know which one I find more reliable.

and the pct dont do any thing then i take it, i get mine information from the people who work in side the nhs the news papers just point me in a right direction to ask questions.
there is a very differentral in pay's between gp's like mine only earns 65k per year and is often on call out 24 hours a day, she works one weekend on call out per mth.
you will find that suht specialist services include orthopaedics, ophthalmology, women and children's service and only run those specialist services to those dept. the pct is also involved in those dept.
and only getting one publish accounts from suht only gives you a very small picture off the whole thing,
go and count up all the trusts in the uk and how much they cost the nhs has a whole.
the nhs is not a business, its a state health care and should be run like one, its people first and money last.
could you tell me how many off your IN contribution go's to wards your personal needs in the health care and pension, I can and i dont even need to know how much your paying weekly.

You can't conflate the PCT and the hospital trust Southy. They're very much separate organisations and run very differently. They often don't 'get on' with each other very well too.

None of the SUHT executive directors sit on the PCT board.

There may be some overlap with the non-executive directors, but that's probably not a bad thing. Advisory role, remember. And the non-executives are the ones that earn around 5k per year for their time. They're often people who have been very successful in industry or elsewhere and perform the non-executive role as a way of 'giving something back', not cashing in.

I won't deny that there's probably a lot of waste in the PCTs. That's certainly been my observation. But you can't tar the Hospital with the same brush. SUHT are in fact one of the only local Trusts that AREN'T in the mire financially. You want to see a mismanaged hospital, take a look down the coast to Pompey. £14.5 million deficit against the General's £13 million surplus. That surplus is paying off the loans taken out before the current executive directors were brought in to sort out the mess created by the last lot, 6 years ago or so.

you can tar all the trusts with the same brush. they are a waste off money. there over inflated wages are whats doing the damage.
seeing that you was not able to answer the ni contributions i will tell you and i have said this before.

only 13 weeks per year (52 weeks) go's to wards all your health care, your pension, or any benefit that you might need to claim like unemployment and any admin. and it only for 30 years.

so thats is 13 x 30 = 390 weeks that go's to wards you.
so where do the other 1,190 weeks go to, and for many off people around my age the working life is 40 years, so that another 520 ni contributions on top.
before when there was any trusts and the doctors and nurse ran the show in there hospitals that they work in the ni contribution was like this.
39 weeks went to ward you and your total health care, pensions and other needs. and it was for 40 years. thats was 1,860 ni contributions and not the 390 that you get now, all those lost ni contribution is going to wards paying for those trusts boards extortionate wages, your ni will be going up yet again this year in one off the 2 budgets or might even be both, and your trust board will be asking for a wage increase also.

People like Dave, a hard working familyman paid taxes all his life,deserve to prolong thier life,I would be curious on how much we spend on methadone for the addicts who constantly steal and attack innocent people to support thier habits and way oflife.Who no doubt claim benefits and live for free.

An alternative may be to travel to India & pay for treatment there. Probably afford to use the same hospital & doctors that the top politicians use.

Why do I bother with you Southy? It's always an ultimately pointless and frustrating exercise. You ignore the direction of debate as it suits you and blether off on tangent after tangent instead. Congratulations on your NI calculations, I'll put a smiley face sticker on your exercise book.

And all the while you come out with Daily Mail level cliches like 'doctors and nurses running the show'. I've worked on projects with doctors. Many of them have less project management skills than a squirrel. A poorly squirrel at that. A poorly squirrel with one eye and an allergy to nuts. Meeting after meeting happens with no purpose, and no decisions being made. The docs are happy though, because they love the sound of their own voices. Many of the worst blunders in the NHS happen when clinical staff are left without adequate management support, or refuse to accept it. To think that medical training equips someone to run something as insanely complex as a hospital is simplistic to the point of stupidity.

Not all docs are like that, some are very good at management. These people become clinical leads, clinical directors or medical directors, and are hugely influential in the direction their hospital takes.

But go ahead, you carry on believing what the journos tell you. Keep on spouting tired inaccurate cliches, feel free. Keep on being gullible. Wanna buy a second hand car?

Redback wrote:
Why do I bother with you Southy? It's always an ultimately pointless and frustrating exercise. You ignore the direction of debate as it suits you and blether off on tangent after tangent instead. Congratulations on your NI calculations, I'll put a smiley face sticker on your exercise book.

And all the while you come out with Daily Mail level cliches like 'doctors and nurses running the show'. I've worked on projects with doctors. Many of them have less project management skills than a squirrel. A poorly squirrel at that. A poorly squirrel with one eye and an allergy to nuts. Meeting after meeting happens with no purpose, and no decisions being made. The docs are happy though, because they love the sound of their own voices. Many of the worst blunders in the NHS happen when clinical staff are left without adequate management support, or refuse to accept it. To think that medical training equips someone to run something as insanely complex as a hospital is simplistic to the point of stupidity.

Not all docs are like that, some are very good at management. These people become clinical leads, clinical directors or medical directors, and are hugely influential in the direction their hospital takes.

But go ahead, you carry on believing what the journos tell you. Keep on spouting tired inaccurate cliches, feel free. Keep on being gullible. Wanna buy a second hand car?

its because i go a lot deeper into it than you. and they are not inaccurate cliches. unlike you i and helping to fight such cases like this poor feller dave, and there is many off them out there.
like you ignore that there is 15 members on the suht board. and only 4 that had an history off medical background before joining the suht. total wage bill is over £1:3 million. in 2009.

Annual Report 08/09. (latest available on their website)

Executive Board members:
Chief Exec (who rescued the General from the financial abyss it was in 6 years ago)
190k
Director of Nursing (a registered nurse)
115k
Chief Operating Officer (a registered nurse)
110k
Director of Strategy
55k
Medical Director (a consultant paediatrician)
165k
Finance Director
145k
Director of Organisational Development
115k

Combined salaries: 895k.

These are the full-time members, who work full weeks. I'd bet they all put in more hours than you or I too.

None of these wages are as high as they would get in the private sector for a similar position running an organisation with a turnover of £500 million, responsible for delivering care to 1.3 million people.

Would you rather they paid minimum wage and put the hospital in the hands of people without the ability to do the job properly?

The other board members are the non-execs. They get around 5k per year. These are the 'school governor' roles.

The fact is that the General is one of the best hospitals in the country. I've done work with several trusts around Hampshire (as well as private sector firms, healtcare and non-healthcare), and SUHT is an excellent organisation. It's well managed financially, delivers leading research, nationally regarded training, and excellent care - some of which is regarded as amongst the best in the world, let alone the UK.

I'm extremely proud to have the General as my local hospital, and I'm extremely proud of the relatives I have that work there. It's utterly depressing to see the likes of you running it down instead of giving them the praise they deserve.

southy wrote:
you can tar all the trusts with the same brush. they are a waste off money. there over inflated wages are whats doing the damage. seeing that you was not able to answer the ni contributions i will tell you and i have said this before. only 13 weeks per year (52 weeks) go's to wards all your health care, your pension, or any benefit that you might need to claim like unemployment and any admin. and it only for 30 years. so thats is 13 x 30 = 390 weeks that go's to wards you. so where do the other 1,190 weeks go to, and for many off people around my age the working life is 40 years, so that another 520 ni contributions on top. before when there was any trusts and the doctors and nurse ran the show in there hospitals that they work in the ni contribution was like this. 39 weeks went to ward you and your total health care, pensions and other needs. and it was for 40 years. thats was 1,860 ni contributions and not the 390 that you get now, all those lost ni contribution is going to wards paying for those trusts boards extortionate wages, your ni will be going up yet again this year in one off the 2 budgets or might even be both, and your trust board will be asking for a wage increase also.

I am going to assume that it's all Thatcher's fault then.

Redback wrote:
Annual Report 08/09. (latest available on their website)

Executive Board members:
Chief Exec (who rescued the General from the financial abyss it was in 6 years ago)
190k
Director of Nursing (a registered nurse)
115k
Chief Operating Officer (a registered nurse)
110k
Director of Strategy
55k
Medical Director (a consultant paediatrician)
165k
Finance Director
145k
Director of Organisational Development
115k

Combined salaries: 895k.

These are the full-time members, who work full weeks. I'd bet they all put in more hours than you or I too.

None of these wages are as high as they would get in the private sector for a similar position running an organisation with a turnover of £500 million, responsible for delivering care to 1.3 million people.

Would you rather they paid minimum wage and put the hospital in the hands of people without the ability to do the job properly?

The other board members are the non-execs. They get around 5k per year. These are the 'school governor' roles.

The fact is that the General is one of the best hospitals in the country. I've done work with several trusts around Hampshire (as well as private sector firms, healtcare and non-healthcare), and SUHT is an excellent organisation. It's well managed financially, delivers leading research, nationally regarded training, and excellent care - some of which is regarded as amongst the best in the world, let alone the UK.

I'm extremely proud to have the General as my local hospital, and I'm extremely proud of the relatives I have that work there. It's utterly depressing to see the likes of you running it down instead of giving them the praise they deserve.

there is 15 members to the suht board not 7.

mr mark hackett, chief executive, train in economics no medical back ground. only in managerment.

mrs judy gillow, director of nursing has a medical back ground

mr steve mcmanus, chief operating officer has medical back ground.

mr caspar ridley, director of strategy and business development has no medical back ground.

dr michael marsh, medical director has a medical background.

mr alastair matthews, director of finance & investment no medical background.

jane hayward, director of organisational development no medical back ground

thats the lower stage off the trust board in suht and only 3 out off 7 has a medical background.

now your upper part off the trust board

mr john trewby cb freng chair no medical background and is the highest earning working 3 days per mth.

mr keith bamber no medical background unless you count being a chemise in procter & gamble

professor david williams has a medical background

mr gareth davies no medical background.

mr paul bradshaw no medical background

dr nick marsden no medical background

lena samuels no medical background

peter hollins (designate) no medical background

out off these 8 only 1 has a medical background.

thats your 15 members off the suht board and out off that 15 only 4 has a medical background

stop counting only half the trust board i will see right though it, every member off the board gets paid, for being on that board and some off them sit on other boards and gets paid for them to. while others work full time in other jobs weather it be in the nhs or else where.

You really are a bit 'special' aren't you?

I said:

"The other board members are the non-execs. They get around 5k per year. These are the 'school governor' roles."

That doesn't suit your simple-minded agenda though does it?

My advice to Mr Dave Dillon, would be to get in-touch, with the local Socialist Party. They will help fight your case, Unlike all the other political party,s, They will help out even when there's is no local or general election.

Let's hope the rest of the party have more sense than you - obsessing about non-executive wages amounting to around £60k in a £5 million organisation.

Redback wrote:
You really are a bit 'special' aren't you?

I said:

"The other board members are the non-execs. They get around 5k per year. These are the 'school governor' roles."

That doesn't suit your simple-minded agenda though does it?

they get a lot more that 5k a year, one none-exec gets 82k a year just for 2 days, plus any public meeting that might come up. and is not the highest earner plus expensive,s on top.
i forgot about that other body the governors who are not on the trust board, who do there work for nothing, but can claim expensive,s, must ask next time how many governors this are.
try attending the nhs open public meetings you will learn a lot more than what you find on a web page

southy wrote:

Redback wrote:
You really are a bit 'special' aren't you?

I said:

"The other board members are the non-execs. They get around 5k per year. These are the 'school governor' roles."

That doesn't suit your simple-minded agenda though does it?

they get a lot more that 5k a year, one none-exec gets 82k a year just for 2 days, plus any public meeting that might come up. and is not the highest earner plus expensive,s on top.
i forgot about that other body the governors who are not on the trust board, who do there work for nothing, but can claim expensive,s, must ask next time how many governors this are.
try attending the nhs open public meetings you will learn a lot more than what you find on a web page

So their published annual accounts, verified by the Audit Commission, are just a pack of fabrications and lies are they?

This is from NICE they recommend it:
http://guidance.nice
.org.uk/TA145
Cetuximab for the treatment of head and neck cancer
Description

Cetuximab in combination with radiotherapy is recommended as a possible treatment for people with locally advanced squamous cell cancer of the head and neck if: they have a Karnofsky performance-status score of 90% or more, and all forms of platinum-based chemotherapy are considered inappropri ...

Read the complete summary

Cetuximab in combination with radiotherapy is recommended as a possible treatment for people with locally advanced squamous cell cancer of the head and neck if:

* they have a Karnofsky performance-status score of 90% or more, and
* all forms of platinum-based chemotherapy are considered inappropriate

Healthcare professionals should not stop prescribing cetuximab in combination with radiotherapy for people who were already receiving it when the guidance was issued, but who do not fulfil the above criteria. These patients should be able to carry on taking cetuximab until they and their healthcare professionals decide that it is the right time to stop treatment.

When assessing Karnofsky performance-status score, healthcare professionals should take into account any disabilities that might affect a person?s ability to carry out daily activities.

Redback wrote:

southy wrote:

Redback wrote:
You really are a bit 'special' aren't you?

I said:

"The other board members are the non-execs. They get around 5k per year. These are the 'school governor' roles."

That doesn't suit your simple-minded agenda though does it?

they get a lot more that 5k a year, one none-exec gets 82k a year just for 2 days, plus any public meeting that might come up. and is not the highest earner plus expensive,s on top.
i forgot about that other body the governors who are not on the trust board, who do there work for nothing, but can claim expensive,s, must ask next time how many governors this are.
try attending the nhs open public meetings you will learn a lot more than what you find on a web page

So their published annual accounts, verified by the Audit Commission, are just a pack of fabrications and lies are they?

you will need to go to a meeting and ask for a copy of audit accounts, or write them a letter and ask for a copy, whitch you will pay for (£37.32).
when you talk about internet web pages its is not an legal binding copy and should only be treated has a guide line, web pages are not prof read, errors are made and left, there is no legal obligation to correct any errors on web pages. like your 5k sounds like the average for each person expensive's

southy wrote:

Redback wrote:

southy wrote:

Redback wrote:
You really are a bit 'special' aren't you?

I said:

"The other board members are the non-execs. They get around 5k per year. These are the 'school governor' roles."

That doesn't suit your simple-minded agenda though does it?

they get a lot more that 5k a year, one none-exec gets 82k a year just for 2 days, plus any public meeting that might come up. and is not the highest earner plus expensive,s on top.
i forgot about that other body the governors who are not on the trust board, who do there work for nothing, but can claim expensive,s, must ask next time how many governors this are.
try attending the nhs open public meetings you will learn a lot more than what you find on a web page

So their published annual accounts, verified by the Audit Commission, are just a pack of fabrications and lies are they?

you will need to go to a meeting and ask for a copy of audit accounts, or write them a letter and ask for a copy, whitch you will pay for (£37.32).
when you talk about internet web pages its is not an legal binding copy and should only be treated has a guide line, web pages are not prof read, errors are made and left, there is no legal obligation to correct any errors on web pages. like your 5k sounds like the average for each person expensive's

It's not just 'an internet web page' it's their PUBLISHED, AUDITED, VERIFIED ANNUAL ACCOUNTS. I've got it in hard-copy too, as it happens.

You're talking rubbish.

Redback wrote:

southy wrote:

Redback wrote:

southy wrote:

Redback wrote:
You really are a bit 'special' aren't you?

I said:

"The other board members are the non-execs. They get around 5k per year. These are the 'school governor' roles."

That doesn't suit your simple-minded agenda though does it?

they get a lot more that 5k a year, one none-exec gets 82k a year just for 2 days, plus any public meeting that might come up. and is not the highest earner plus expensive,s on top.
i forgot about that other body the governors who are not on the trust board, who do there work for nothing, but can claim expensive,s, must ask next time how many governors this are.
try attending the nhs open public meetings you will learn a lot more than what you find on a web page

So their published annual accounts, verified by the Audit Commission, are just a pack of fabrications and lies are they?

you will need to go to a meeting and ask for a copy of audit accounts, or write them a letter and ask for a copy, whitch you will pay for (£37.32).
when you talk about internet web pages its is not an legal binding copy and should only be treated has a guide line, web pages are not prof read, errors are made and left, there is no legal obligation to correct any errors on web pages. like your 5k sounds like the average for each person expensive's

It's not just 'an internet web page' it's their PUBLISHED, AUDITED, VERIFIED ANNUAL ACCOUNTS. I've got it in hard-copy too, as it happens.

You're talking rubbish.

i have a copy also thats how come i know how much you have to pay for it. and thats where i was getting my information from. and it covers every single trust in hampshire, and thats how come i could put names to every one that is on the trust board. and cross ref with the nhs boards and trusts boards booklet on there back ground and what there qualification are. i am getting ready for a nhs meeting this coming monday (21st), so i will know what questions to ask.

southy wrote:

Redback wrote:

southy wrote:

Redback wrote: You really are a bit 'special' aren't you? I said: "The other board members are the non-execs. They get around 5k per year. These are the 'school governor' roles." That doesn't suit your simple-minded agenda though does it?

they get a lot more that 5k a year, one none-exec gets 82k a year just for 2 days, plus any public meeting that might come up. and is not the highest earner plus expensive,s on top. i forgot about that other body the governors who are not on the trust board, who do there work for nothing, but can claim expensive,s, must ask next time how many governors this are. try attending the nhs open public meetings you will learn a lot more than what you find on a web page

So their published annual accounts, verified by the Audit Commission, are just a pack of fabrications and lies are they?

you will need to go to a meeting and ask for a copy of audit accounts, or write them a letter and ask for a copy, whitch you will pay for (£37.32). when you talk about internet web pages its is not an legal binding copy and should only be treated has a guide line, web pages are not prof read, errors are made and left, there is no legal obligation to correct any errors on web pages. like your 5k sounds like the average for each person expensive's

And you are living proof that some things on the Interweb are lies, not prof read with errors made.
.
Your heart is in the right place but you are nearly always wrong with your "facts" and fail to grasp even basic operational processes.
.
Please for the sake of us all go back to rigging.

Adrian Smith wrote:

southy wrote:

Redback wrote:

southy wrote:

Redback wrote: You really are a bit 'special' aren't you? I said: "The other board members are the non-execs. They get around 5k per year. These are the 'school governor' roles." That doesn't suit your simple-minded agenda though does it?

they get a lot more that 5k a year, one none-exec gets 82k a year just for 2 days, plus any public meeting that might come up. and is not the highest earner plus expensive,s on top. i forgot about that other body the governors who are not on the trust board, who do there work for nothing, but can claim expensive,s, must ask next time how many governors this are. try attending the nhs open public meetings you will learn a lot more than what you find on a web page

So their published annual accounts, verified by the Audit Commission, are just a pack of fabrications and lies are they?

you will need to go to a meeting and ask for a copy of audit accounts, or write them a letter and ask for a copy, whitch you will pay for (£37.32). when you talk about internet web pages its is not an legal binding copy and should only be treated has a guide line, web pages are not prof read, errors are made and left, there is no legal obligation to correct any errors on web pages. like your 5k sounds like the average for each person expensive's

And you are living proof that some things on the Interweb are lies, not prof read with errors made.
.
Your heart is in the right place but you are nearly always wrong with your "facts" and fail to grasp even basic operational processes.
.
Please for the sake of us all go back to rigging.

when i am wrong i am that close to the facts there,s very little difference and are very minor details.
i dont like getting my info from the internet like the majority that post on here do, i know to well that there is to many uncorrected errors, thats why internet web sites pages post up disclaimers.

"Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many men know a great deal, and are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool so great a fool as a knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom."

Southy? Are you dyslexic? Or do you have some other learning disability? I'm totally serious here. I'd really like to know.