§ Mr. LansleyTo ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish an update of the data contained in Figure 7.7 of the 2003 Departmental Annual Report, compiled on the same basis. [171544]
§ Mr. Hutton[holding answer 10 May 2004]:Traditionally, efficiency in the National Health Service has been measured using the cost weighted efficiency index but changes in the way healthcare is delivered now
36W
Women aged under 20 attending family planning clinics whose main method of contraception was a contraception implant, by
age, England, 2000–01 to 2002–03
Under 15 15 16–19 2000–01 20 50 400 2001–02 20 60 650 2002–03 60 1,190 Note: Figures rounded to nearest 10. Source: Statistics Division, Department of Health. mean that it gives an increasingly incomplete and misleading picture. Therefore, an update was not published in the 2004 Departmental Report.
The main drawbacks of the cost weighted efficiency index are that it:
fails to count a large amount of NHS activity—for example primary care consultations and procedures, nurse led procedures, Family Health Services prescriptions. NHS Direct calls and walk-in centre visits;takes no account of quality such as better health outcomes, shorter waiting times, singles sex wards or cleaner hospitals;37Wclassifies activity in only 12 activity types and two of which (inpatients and outpatients) account for 85 per cent, of the cost weights. This limits the ability to measure changes in case-mix; andperversely records shifts in activity from inpatients to outpatients and from outpatients to primary or community care as inefficiency.The Office for National Statistics is working with the Department as part of the Atkinson Review of Measurement of Government Outputs to develop new measures of NHS productivity. The updated figures for figure 7.7 of the 2003 Departmental Report are shown in the table.
Hospital and Community
Health Services
cost weighted
activity
Expenditure adjusted for
changes in input
unit costs
Real terms growth in expenditure
Year Index Growth (%)
Index Growth (%)
Index Growth (%)
1991–92 100.0 100.0 100.0 1992–93 103.1 3.1 103.1 3.1 106.8 6.8 1993—94 107.2 4.0 104.7 1.6 109.5 2.5 1994–95 111.7 4.2 106.2 1.4 112.3 2.6 1995–96 116.1 4.0 108.1 1.8 115.3 2.6 1996–97 118.0 1.7 109.7 1.5 116.5 1.1 1997–98 120.2 1.8 112.1 2.2 117.5 0.9 1998–99 122.6 2.1 115.4 3.0 122.4 4.1 1999–2000 124.0 1.1 119.7 3.7 129.6 5.9 2000–01 124.7 0.6 125.1 4.5 138.0 6.5 2001–02 124.8 0.1 126.5 1.1 143.0 3.6