§ Mr. Denham
Expenditure per weighted head of population for 1996–97 to 1998–99 is shown for each health authority area in London in the table.
These figures are not comparable between years or between health authorities as a result of changes in accounting practice and other technical accounting differences.
Expenditure by health authority area for later years is not available.
London-expenditure by weighted head of population £ Health authority 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 Barking and Havering 565.45 562.37 647.90 Barnet 600.88 643.58 658.78 Bexley and Greenwich 579.39 622.77 671.51 Brent and Harrow 608.69 641.56 703.11 Bromley 524.58 580.83 751.02 Camden and Islington 673.66 647.73 791.10 Croydon 542.71 575.61 646.81 Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow 615.88 626.99 678.25 East London and the City 614.61 611.16 658.96 Enfield and Haringey 561.91 584.89 626.57 Hillingdon 585.23 594.37 648.70 Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster 697.38 670.40 752.56 Kingston and Richmond 644.27 677.07 748.79 Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham 593.35 611.17 650.40 Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth 612.03 635.97 691.65 Redbridge and Waltham Forest 584.88 621.48 684.47 London 603.11 620.28 684.53
1. Expenditure is taken from HA Annual Accounts which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in each year. (These are not the total amounts spent on healthcare. General Dental Services expenditure is separately accounted for and cannot be analysed by health authority over the three years). Also, since 1997–98 drugs expenditure has been mainly accounted for by the Prescription Pricing Authority. For consistency, figures have been reduced by the amount of non-cash limited prescribing expenditure accounted for by the health authority in each year.
2. However, there are a number of other reasons why the figures shown cannot be directly compared between years and between health authorities. These will include:
- (a) Non medical education and training expenditure (NMET); some authorities account for NMET on behalf of local consortia, and those HAs will have different levels of NMET funding over different years;
- (b) The levels of non-recurrent allocations (such as strategic assistance) will have varied between years and authorities;
- (c) The differential impact of cash limited prescribing, eg as a result of differential levels of general practitioner fundholding;
- (d) Services (eg HIV/AIDS) that are accounted for on a district of treatment basis will distort the expenditure per capita figures which are based on resident populations;
- (e) Changes in accounting policy over the years;
- (f) There could also be different interpretations by auditors which may affect direct comparison; and
- (g) Changes in the weighted population figures between years.
3. The expenditure per weighted head figures in the answer do not therefore reflect real changes in the resources available for spend on healthcare locally over the period or provide robust comparisons between HAs.
The accounts of health authorities in London for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99.
Weighted population estimates for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99.