Ok Haysie, the first person to claim to be a victim wins the argument. I concede.
You should probably just accept the thread is a bit of a car crash. Most of the nitpicking is trying to work out what your actual point or angle is. There was no mention of your surprise, or whether you agreed or disagreed with the article you copied and pasted in the original post. You didn’t gives your thoughts linking it to other wastage you think there is, just later on start talking about expensive creams.
You can be surprised at a headline or a number, but when set against other numbers you can make more sense of what you’re looking at. The ‘Our Year In Numbers’ information you posted gave a great rundown as to why you shouldn’t be so surprised, and gave a clue as to how the original headline was misleading.
If you can’t understand why the thread has gone the way it has, I’m not going to explain it to you.
Ok Haysie, the first person to claim to be a victim wins the argument. I concede.
You should probably just accept the thread is a bit of a car crash. Most of the nitpicking is trying to work out what your actual point or angle is. There was no mention of your surprise, or whether you agreed or disagreed with the article you copied and pasted in the original post. You didn’t gives your thoughts linking it to other wastage you think there is, just later on start talking about expensive creams.
You can be surprised at a headline or a number, but when set against other numbers you can make more sense of what you’re looking at. The ‘Our Year In Numbers’ information you posted gave a great rundown as to why you shouldn’t be so surprised, and gave a clue as to how the original headline was misleading.
If you can’t understand why the thread has gone the way it has, I’m not going to explain it to you.
I am still surprised by the number of cases that they regularly settle.
I am particularly surprised by the value of outstanding claims.
Unless they dont plan on settling the outstanding claims in the next 50 years, then the current annual figure will shoot up at some point very soon.
Most of the stuff I have mentioned wouldnt be tolerated by the private sector.
The outstanding claims will be actuarial estimates of non-settled cases. It’s pretty standard practice, in fact is mandatory to take account of this in private sector firms that deal with claim payments.
The outstanding claims will be actuarial estimates of non-settled cases. It’s pretty standard practice, in fact is mandatory to take account of this in private sector firms that deal with claim payments.
It’s also going to include ongoing costs where claims aren’t settled immediately, e.g. someone requires money for ongoing treatment/debilitation. Some of these could have started 30+ years ago. These things are complex and can’t be distilled to a couple of headlines or a couple of numbers to compare. You’d need to see the development curves of the estimates from incident dates to make sense of it. Again, standard practice in private insurance companies, but not known to feature in tabloid narratives.
It’s also going to include ongoing costs where claims aren’t settled immediately, e.g. someone requires money for ongoing treatment/debilitation. Some of these could have started 30+ years ago. These things are complex and can’t be distilled to a couple of headlines or a couple of numbers to compare. You’d need to see the development curves of the estimates from incident dates to make sense of it. Again, standard practice in private insurance companies, but not known to feature in tabloid narratives.
The article headline was £1.4 billion, over one year.
£83 billion makes that sound like very small beer in comparison.
That is around two thirds of one years total running costs.
The £1.4 billion was in respect of around 7,500 settled cases.
So does the £83 billion represent about 45,000 unsettled cases?
No. Estimates of long-tailed claims will of course cost far more in total than short-tailed (or one-off) settlements. Short-tailed claims are much more likely to be currently settled than the long-tailed ones.
It wouldn’t make sense to map the average cost of a short-tailed claim onto the unsettled to reach your prediction of number of unsettled claims.
Why would you compare a claims total that might be spread over 20 years to the operating cost of a single year? The estimate is not all about to be paid immediately.
Why would you compare a claims total that might be spread over 20 years to the operating cost of a single year? The estimate is not all about to be paid immediately.
I dont really follow your argument. There will presumably be claims settled this year for negligence that occurred years ago. This would surely be the case every year. Doesnt a backlog of £83billion suggest that the annual figure will increase substantially as these claims become due to be settled?
If the litigation landscape has changed dramatically then the number of such claims initiated in 1989 would look substantially different to those in 2019. There is no backlog, it is an estimate of future payments.
I don’t really have time to teach you reserving methodologies here, but this document may help if you have the time and inclination. Just have a look at some of the example tables and sum the estimates of future claims development. That will give you a number that is reflective of what this 83bn number is, and you can extend your own table based on the shape of the claims coming in.
You probably think I’m nitpicking. The point is only that you need more granular data than the total unsettled estimate to get to the trends that explain what is going on.
If the litigation landscape has changed dramatically then the number of such claims initiated in 1989 would look substantially different to those in 2019. There is no backlog, it is an estimate of future payments.
I don’t really have time to teach you reserving methodologies here, but this document may help if you have the time and inclination. Just have a look at some of the example tables and sum the estimates of future claims development. That will give you a number that is reflective of what this 83bn number is, and you can extend your own table based on the shape of the claims coming in.
You probably think I’m nitpicking. The point is only that you need more granular data than the total unsettled estimate to get to the trends that explain what is going on.
My point was just that £1.4 billion warranted a headline.
Unless they take 60 years to settle the outstanding cases, which is unlikely, and there are no further cases, which is also unlikely, then the headline figure is likely to increase substantially in future years.
Record 1.85million patients in England are now waiting more than the standard 18 weeks for routine hospital treatment - and more than 50,000 people have waited for a YEAR already
Data released by NHS England showed that the number of people who have been waiting for more than a year for an operation or procedure is 50 times higher than it was in June 2019.
Hmm what could be causing that big spike at the end of the graph? Any news lately that hospitals have had to reprioritise treatment? Been in the news a bit, begins with a C.
Next you’ll be claiming to be surprised the economic output is down 20%.
Hmm what could be causing that big spike at the end of the graph? Any news lately that hospitals have had to reprioritise treatment? Been in the news a bit, begins with a C.
Next you’ll be claiming to be surprised the economic output is down 20%.
You seem unable to avoid your patronising attitude, which has been pointed out previously on this forum.
You just cant help it.
As the figures are in respect of those that have been waiting over 12 months, then the problem started before the virus.
It’s difficult to avoid being patronising when pointing out the bleeding obvious.
The sensationalist headline is all about the record 1.85m waiting 18 weeks. 18 weeks. Curious timeframe.
I think I’ll leave you to believe the hype in future and to your incessant posting and ingestion of the Daily Mail. It’s rarely clear why you copy and paste their tripe since you don’t offer views until someone stumbles into the tripwire of analysing such ‘journalism’.
Ok Haysie, the first person to claim to be a victim wins the argument. I concede.
You should probably just accept the thread is a bit of a car crash. Most of the nitpicking is trying to work out what your actual point or angle is. There was no mention of your surprise, or whether you agreed or disagreed with the article you copied and pasted in the original post. You didn’t gives your thoughts linking it to other wastage you think there is, just later on start talking about expensive creams.
You can be surprised at a headline or a number, but when set against other numbers you can make more sense of what you’re looking at. The ‘Our Year In Numbers’ information you posted gave a great rundown as to why you shouldn’t be so surprised, and gave a clue as to how the original headline was misleading.
If you can’t understand why the thread has gone the way it has, I’m not going to explain it to you.
I am still surprised by the number of cases that they regularly settle.
I am particularly surprised by the value of outstanding claims.
Unless they dont plan on settling the outstanding claims in the next 50 years, then the current annual figure will shoot up at some point very soon.
Most of the stuff I have mentioned wouldnt be tolerated by the private sector.
So are you in favour of NHS privatisation then @HAYSIE ?
Ok Haysie, the first person to claim to be a victim wins the argument. I concede.
You should probably just accept the thread is a bit of a car crash. Most of the nitpicking is trying to work out what your actual point or angle is. There was no mention of your surprise, or whether you agreed or disagreed with the article you copied and pasted in the original post. You didn’t gives your thoughts linking it to other wastage you think there is, just later on start talking about expensive creams.
You can be surprised at a headline or a number, but when set against other numbers you can make more sense of what you’re looking at. The ‘Our Year In Numbers’ information you posted gave a great rundown as to why you shouldn’t be so surprised, and gave a clue as to how the original headline was misleading.
If you can’t understand why the thread has gone the way it has, I’m not going to explain it to you.
I am still surprised by the number of cases that they regularly settle.
I am particularly surprised by the value of outstanding claims.
Unless they dont plan on settling the outstanding claims in the next 50 years, then the current annual figure will shoot up at some point very soon.
Most of the stuff I have mentioned wouldnt be tolerated by the private sector.
So are you in favour of NHS privatisation then @HAYSIE ?
I would prefer it if they could improve their performance.
There dont seem to be any headlines regarding compensation claims in respect of the private sector.
Although I appreciate that they do far less.
I am surprised by the number of settled compensation claims, and the massive backlog.
I was also amazed by how easy the NHS is to defraud.
They paid out £millions on the strength emails allegedly from major suppliers informing them of amended bank details. This resulted in them settling huge invoices into these accounts, which subsequently disappeared. Operations being cancelled through equipment being stolen. Staff defrauding them by supposedly working at a number of hospitals at the same time. The fraud also runs into billions. I wonder what the running costs would be if they were a little more efficient. They dont seem able to solve their recruitment problem ever. They seem to accept the Winter chaos year on year. Do you think that settling 7,500 compensation claims per year is acceptable? What about billions in fraud, and theft each year?
It’s difficult to avoid being patronising when pointing out the bleeding obvious.
The sensationalist headline is all about the record 1.85m waiting 18 weeks. 18 weeks. Curious timeframe.
I think I’ll leave you to believe the hype in future and to your incessant posting and ingestion of the Daily Mail. It’s rarely clear why you copy and paste their tripe since you don’t offer views until someone stumbles into the tripwire of analysing such ‘journalism’.
Comments
You should probably just accept the thread is a bit of a car crash. Most of the nitpicking is trying to work out what your actual point or angle is. There was no mention of your surprise, or whether you agreed or disagreed with the article you copied and pasted in the original post. You didn’t gives your thoughts linking it to other wastage you think there is, just later on start talking about expensive creams.
You can be surprised at a headline or a number, but when set against other numbers you can make more sense of what you’re looking at. The ‘Our Year In Numbers’ information you posted gave a great rundown as to why you shouldn’t be so surprised, and gave a clue as to how the original headline was misleading.
If you can’t understand why the thread has gone the way it has, I’m not going to explain it to you.
I am particularly surprised by the value of outstanding claims.
Unless they dont plan on settling the outstanding claims in the next 50 years, then the current annual figure will shoot up at some point very soon.
Most of the stuff I have mentioned wouldnt be tolerated by the private sector.
It’s also going to include ongoing costs where claims aren’t settled immediately, e.g. someone requires money for ongoing treatment/debilitation. Some of these could have started 30+ years ago. These things are complex and can’t be distilled to a couple of headlines or a couple of numbers to compare. You’d need to see the development curves of the estimates from incident dates to make sense of it. Again, standard practice in private insurance companies, but not known to feature in tabloid narratives.
£83 billion makes that sound like very small beer in comparison.
That is around two thirds of one years total running costs.
The £1.4 billion was in respect of around 7,500 settled cases.
So does the £83 billion represent about 45,000 unsettled cases?
It wouldn’t make sense to map the average cost of a short-tailed claim onto the unsettled to reach your prediction of number of unsettled claims.
There will presumably be claims settled this year for negligence that occurred years ago.
This would surely be the case every year.
Doesnt a backlog of £83billion suggest that the annual figure will increase substantially as these claims become due to be settled?
I don’t really have time to teach you reserving methodologies here, but this document may help if you have the time and inclination. Just have a look at some of the example tables and sum the estimates of future claims development. That will give you a number that is reflective of what this 83bn number is, and you can extend your own table based on the shape of the claims coming in.
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/field/document/Claims Reserving Manual V1 complete.pdf
You probably think I’m nitpicking. The point is only that you need more granular data than the total unsettled estimate to get to the trends that explain what is going on.
Unless they take 60 years to settle the outstanding cases, which is unlikely, and there are no further cases, which is also unlikely, then the headline figure is likely to increase substantially in future years.
Data released by NHS England showed that the number of people who have been waiting for more than a year for an operation or procedure is 50 times higher than it was in June 2019.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
Next you’ll be claiming to be surprised the economic output is down 20%.
You just cant help it.
As the figures are in respect of those that have been waiting over 12 months, then the problem started before the virus.
The sensationalist headline is all about the record 1.85m waiting 18 weeks. 18 weeks. Curious timeframe.
I think I’ll leave you to believe the hype in future and to your incessant posting and ingestion of the Daily Mail. It’s rarely clear why you copy and paste their tripe since you don’t offer views until someone stumbles into the tripwire of analysing such ‘journalism’.
There dont seem to be any headlines regarding compensation claims in respect of the private sector.
Although I appreciate that they do far less.
I am surprised by the number of settled compensation claims, and the massive backlog.
I was also amazed by how easy the NHS is to defraud.
They paid out £millions on the strength emails allegedly from major suppliers informing them of amended bank details.
This resulted in them settling huge invoices into these accounts, which subsequently disappeared.
Operations being cancelled through equipment being stolen.
Staff defrauding them by supposedly working at a number of hospitals at the same time.
The fraud also runs into billions.
I wonder what the running costs would be if they were a little more efficient.
They dont seem able to solve their recruitment problem ever.
They seem to accept the Winter chaos year on year.
Do you think that settling 7,500 compensation claims per year is acceptable?
What about billions in fraud, and theft each year?