Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal and financial issues' started by Beate, Jan 28, 2015.
Well, that says it all doesn't it.
We all knew that authorities varied a lot but the difference is quite staggering.
Makes me think I might try to summon up the strength to tackle the team here again.
Source data >>>HERE<<<
"Patients living in Salford, Greater Manchester, were six times more likely to have their care paid for than six miles away in Trafford."
Glad I live on the north side of the Manchester Ship Canal if we're 6 times better off than Trafford.
Is it possible to get the whole list and see what all the councils spend, I looked but can't find it, I guess seeing where your council fits in and if they are a big spender or not would give Saffie some idea whether or not she's wasting her time asking.
"...Is it possible to get the whole list and see what all the councils spend..."
Not the spend or council but both 'newly eligible and 'currently eligible' for CHC per 50000 aged 18+ per CCG.
From the link I previously posted
A snapshot of some of the data with Salford and Trafford annotated
Just to reinforce the data:
"...We all knew that authorities varied a lot but the difference is quite staggering.
Makes me think I might try to summon up the strength to tackle the team here again..."
Better get the WMDs ready Saffie
The data does need to be used with care, and I'm not convinced it is particularly useful. To get a useful picture of CCG (not Councils) practice in relation to CHC you would need to know the numbers of applications for CHC (not just the "newly eligible") both in absolute terms and percentages by age (or age range) and gender and ethnicity, as well as the conversion rate (i.e. % of applications which were successful - the data doesn't show that) broken down by Clinical Code (i.e. the condition in respect of which CHC was paid), and also by gender, age, and ethnicity. I'm not certain all of this data is captured in a usable form, and its release would be legally problematic as the absolute numbers in each category would be small enough to risk identification of individuals. The low numbers in each CCG mean that to get a useful picture data would be needed over several years, and I'd expect things to be more consistent over a longer term and a wider (and more useful) range of metrics. That there are wide variations isn't something I doubt, but some of the data bears the term "Experimental Statistics" - a polite way of the HSCIC saying it isn't entirely sure the product is particularly useful, at least in at its present stage. Achieving a more apparently consistent set of outcomes would require pinpointing not just the CCG (and the teams managing CHC either in CCGs or CSUs), but also issues round the completion of the documentation for the CHC process in respect of different conditions.
Considering arming myself whilst I speak Nitram!