You know I’d always thought that when someone said they were
investing in something that that meant that they were putting money into
something. Money that was available to be given, ie not already invested
elsewhere. So when the government said it was investing in mental health I
assumed this meant an overall influx of money to mental health services. But
really that isn’t the case is it?
Okay so for many years more money than before was being
spent on mental health but those big figures of
In addition,
we will invest around £400m over four years in psychological therapies for
those who need them in all parts of England, expanding provision for the entire
population
Really haven’t meant that they have found £400 m to invest
from somewhere else. It means that they’ve re-jigged the budget and asked other
services to go without vital money they need to run their services in order to
put money into this one. So some might say that efficiency has been improved
but really. Do they think we haven’t got any brains?
And now that the figures are in (Department of health http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/07/investment-mental-health/)
Total
investment increased from £6.550 billion in 2010/11 to £6.629 billion which is a 1.2% cash increase and a real decrease of
1.0%.
The
reported investment in the three traditional priority areas (Crisis Resolution,
Early Intervention and Assertive Outreach) overall has fallen for the first
time by £29.3 million. Only Early Intervention reported increased investment.
Investment
in psychological therapies increased significantly in real terms by 6.0% over
the monies in 2010/11 and now forms 7.0% of direct services investment
nationally.
Five SHAs either maintained their investment in
real terms or reported modest increases in investment ranging from 0.1% to
4.6%. Five reported reduced investment of up to 5.3% (London, North East, South
Central, West Midlands and Yorkshire and Humber).
It seems that they have not even managed to invest more than
inflation and any investment in psychological therapies is at the detriment of
other services?
And I am to be grateful for this; I am to have hope for future
investment because of this?
I’m not sure I can be
and what’s more I am unhappy about the way people are still talking about
investment in mental health services. It seems that everyone concerned is still
trying to put some spin on the investment angle despite the figures. This
article states Some NHS services cut
despite pledge, says ex-minister Paul Burstow http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/sep/23/health-mental-health
has quotes
Burstow, who
is MP for Sutton and Cheam, said the picture was mitigated by increased
investment in talking therapies and the improving access to psychological
therapies programme
A Department of Health spokesman said:
"Investment in psychological therapy has doubled over the last three years
from £197m to £386m and continues to rise
I’m astounded, do they really think we are going to be
fooled. Services are improving yes but many are losing out to the governments’
pet project and how long is it really going to be before they start saying...ooh
crisis care is so bad we have to invest. Oh I know therapies are doing much
better lets take their money and give it to this now.
Facetious...However, am I wrong?
The only answer to
improving services is overall investment. There is no way of making these
services any more efficient than they are so moving the money around just means
that one aspect of mental health services suffers to breaking point.
You know the sad fact is that many people in this country
are not going to realise that actually this is what the government is doing. They
will not look at the figures and will not read the articles that could tell
them because they are too busy to do so.
I know I am far from alone in being disgusted by this
however I really don’t think the message is getting through to enough people,
and particularly those who still talk about investment.
Please take note
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not sustainable!
No comments:
Post a Comment