Healthy meals mean better grades, insists television’s top chef Jamie Oliver, but price rises put progress at risk Parents across Britain will be asked to pay significantly more for their children’s school dinners from Monday, in a move that experts say will lead to thousands of poorer pupils missing out on healthy meals. Prices will rise by up to 17% in some schools, with charges set to exceed £2.60 in the most extreme cases. The higher charges come amid soaring food costs and in response to the government’s decision to remove protection for a subsidy that has kept prices low in recent years. The school dinner grant loses its ring-fencing on Monday and can be spent by schools or local authorities to cover gaps in other budgets. The Observer has learned that more than 30 local authorities intend to increase the cost to children in coming months. Writing in today’s Observer , chef and food campaigner Jamie Oliver says he hopes the government will continue to invest in “quality school food, and the integral support and training of kitchen staff”. He writes: “I believe that any compromise on a child’s right to a healthy school lunch… is child abuse on an unimaginable scale.” Doncaster council will increase the price of a lunch by 17% tomorrow to £2.10. By the end of the month, Lewisham plans to raise its prices by 14% to £1.60 and Blackpool is planning a 7% rise in the next academic year to £2.10. Bolton council has announced that it will scrap its hugely popular £1-a-meal policy in September and increase the price to £1.50 by January next year. Schools that have taken over responsibility from local authorities for providing meals to pupils are also expected to increase their prices. In Poole, the council said that the average price charged by schools would rise by around 11p to £2.50 in this financial year. In Somerset the price in some schools recently increased to £2.60 and could rise further. Meanwhile, six meals services in the area have closed because their future was deemed financially unviable. It is feared that more schools plan to stop providing hot meals. Wendy Green, the council’s transforming school food project manager, said she had concerns for rural schools where delivery costs were an added expense. “These services are going to struggle with the loss of that funding. Four years ago we only had hot meals in 30% of primary schools, now we have them in 80%. My concern is that we are going to start dropping back below 80%. Our prices are variable, but most are charging between £2.25 and £2.60 for a two-course meal for a primary school child. That’s a lot of money for a family with two or three children. If it doesn’t go on the meal price, parents could be faced with a significant hike. A lot of parents won’t be willing to pay that and then those services will not be viable because the uptake will be low.” Research from the Schools Food Trust shows that the uptake of school meals is sensitive to price changes. A paper commissioned in 2009 suggests that a rise in the price of a school meal prompts a corresponding fall in take-up. Carmel McConnell, from the child nutrition charity Magic Breakfasts, said she feared an escalation in malnutrition in schools. She said: “I think we will see more cases of scurvy and other conditions.” Children eating healthy school dinners promoted by celebrity chef Jamie Oliver six years ago enjoyed dramatically improved test results, according to research undertaken by academics at Oxford and Essex universities. The chef’s nutritious meals were more effective than the government’s daily literacy hour at raising standards of English in primary schools. Where healthy meals were eaten there was a rise of 4.5% in English Sats results in the first schools where the scheme was tried. This compared with a 3.2% rise linked to the introduction of structured daily literacy lessons. Pupils took less time off sick. For his Jamie’s School Dinners series in 2005, Oliver visited a school in Greenwich, south-east London, and insisted that it scrap Turkey Twizzlers and chips in favour of nutrient-rich foods such as fish and broccoli. This spawned the Feed Me Better campaign with the wider goal of improving school dinners. The price rises will affect any child whose parents collectively earn more than £16,000 a year, the threshold for a free school meal. A spokesman for the Department for Education said: “We make no apologies for giving headteachers complete freedom over their budgets – they know what’s best for their pupils. The tough nutrition standards remain in place.” Jamie Oliver Sadly, politicians can have short memories. Back in 2005, when I took the school dinners petitioned to Downing Street, members from all parties were queuing up to say how school dinners needed to be radically improved and how important investment and a long-term food strategy was. Parents, teachers and the media across the country were shocked at the standard of food their kids were being fed 190 days a year from the ages of four to 16, during – the most precious years of their lives. We all fought hard to get new money injected into the system. I had a positive meeting with Michael Gove before Christmas, and for the country’s sake I hope he ensures the continued investment in quality school food, and the integral support and training of kitchen staff where needed. Food education in schools is also incredibly important. It was made compulsory for children in secondary schools in 2008, and is only due to come into schools this September. But already it is now under threat of being removed from the curriculum completely. It’s the long-term health, happiness and productivity of the future of our country that is at risk. I believe that any compromise on a child’s right to a healthy school lunch or their access to learning about food, where it comes from and what it does to their body is child abuse on an unimaginable scale. Credit to Labour for justly pioneering the school food changes. I hope that the coalition government will only improve on what they (the previous government) started. School meals Schools Nutrition Jamie Oliver Michael Gove Health & wellbeing Food & drink Children Health Daniel Boffey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Healthy meals mean better grades, insists television’s top chef Jamie Oliver, but price rises put progress at risk Parents across Britain will be asked to pay significantly more for their children’s school dinners from Monday, in a move that experts say will lead to thousands of poorer pupils missing out on healthy meals. Prices will rise by up to 17% in some schools, with charges set to exceed £2.60 in the most extreme cases. The higher charges come amid soaring food costs and in response to the government’s decision to remove protection for a subsidy that has kept prices low in recent years. The school dinner grant loses its ring-fencing on Monday and can be spent by schools or local authorities to cover gaps in other budgets. The Observer has learned that more than 30 local authorities intend to increase the cost to children in coming months. Writing in today’s Observer , chef and food campaigner Jamie Oliver says he hopes the government will continue to invest in “quality school food, and the integral support and training of kitchen staff”. He writes: “I believe that any compromise on a child’s right to a healthy school lunch… is child abuse on an unimaginable scale.” Doncaster council will increase the price of a lunch by 17% tomorrow to £2.10. By the end of the month, Lewisham plans to raise its prices by 14% to £1.60 and Blackpool is planning a 7% rise in the next academic year to £2.10. Bolton council has announced that it will scrap its hugely popular £1-a-meal policy in September and increase the price to £1.50 by January next year. Schools that have taken over responsibility from local authorities for providing meals to pupils are also expected to increase their prices. In Poole, the council said that the average price charged by schools would rise by around 11p to £2.50 in this financial year. In Somerset the price in some schools recently increased to £2.60 and could rise further. Meanwhile, six meals services in the area have closed because their future was deemed financially unviable. It is feared that more schools plan to stop providing hot meals. Wendy Green, the council’s transforming school food project manager, said she had concerns for rural schools where delivery costs were an added expense. “These services are going to struggle with the loss of that funding. Four years ago we only had hot meals in 30% of primary schools, now we have them in 80%. My concern is that we are going to start dropping back below 80%. Our prices are variable, but most are charging between £2.25 and £2.60 for a two-course meal for a primary school child. That’s a lot of money for a family with two or three children. If it doesn’t go on the meal price, parents could be faced with a significant hike. A lot of parents won’t be willing to pay that and then those services will not be viable because the uptake will be low.” Research from the Schools Food Trust shows that the uptake of school meals is sensitive to price changes. A paper commissioned in 2009 suggests that a rise in the price of a school meal prompts a corresponding fall in take-up. Carmel McConnell, from the child nutrition charity Magic Breakfasts, said she feared an escalation in malnutrition in schools. She said: “I think we will see more cases of scurvy and other conditions.” Children eating healthy school dinners promoted by celebrity chef Jamie Oliver six years ago enjoyed dramatically improved test results, according to research undertaken by academics at Oxford and Essex universities. The chef’s nutritious meals were more effective than the government’s daily literacy hour at raising standards of English in primary schools. Where healthy meals were eaten there was a rise of 4.5% in English Sats results in the first schools where the scheme was tried. This compared with a 3.2% rise linked to the introduction of structured daily literacy lessons. Pupils took less time off sick. For his Jamie’s School Dinners series in 2005, Oliver visited a school in Greenwich, south-east London, and insisted that it scrap Turkey Twizzlers and chips in favour of nutrient-rich foods such as fish and broccoli. This spawned the Feed Me Better campaign with the wider goal of improving school dinners. The price rises will affect any child whose parents collectively earn more than £16,000 a year, the threshold for a free school meal. A spokesman for the Department for Education said: “We make no apologies for giving headteachers complete freedom over their budgets – they know what’s best for their pupils. The tough nutrition standards remain in place.” Jamie Oliver Sadly, politicians can have short memories. Back in 2005, when I took the school dinners petitioned to Downing Street, members from all parties were queuing up to say how school dinners needed to be radically improved and how important investment and a long-term food strategy was. Parents, teachers and the media across the country were shocked at the standard of food their kids were being fed 190 days a year from the ages of four to 16, during – the most precious years of their lives. We all fought hard to get new money injected into the system. I had a positive meeting with Michael Gove before Christmas, and for the country’s sake I hope he ensures the continued investment in quality school food, and the integral support and training of kitchen staff where needed. Food education in schools is also incredibly important. It was made compulsory for children in secondary schools in 2008, and is only due to come into schools this September. But already it is now under threat of being removed from the curriculum completely. It’s the long-term health, happiness and productivity of the future of our country that is at risk. I believe that any compromise on a child’s right to a healthy school lunch or their access to learning about food, where it comes from and what it does to their body is child abuse on an unimaginable scale. Credit to Labour for justly pioneering the school food changes. I hope that the coalition government will only improve on what they (the previous government) started. School meals Schools Nutrition Jamie Oliver Michael Gove Health & wellbeing Food & drink Children Health Daniel Boffey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Healthy meals mean better grades, insists television’s top chef Jamie Oliver, but price rises put progress at risk Parents across Britain will be asked to pay significantly more for their children’s school dinners from Monday, in a move that experts say will lead to thousands of poorer pupils missing out on healthy meals. Prices will rise by up to 17% in some schools, with charges set to exceed £2.60 in the most extreme cases. The higher charges come amid soaring food costs and in response to the government’s decision to remove protection for a subsidy that has kept prices low in recent years. The school dinner grant loses its ring-fencing on Monday and can be spent by schools or local authorities to cover gaps in other budgets. The Observer has learned that more than 30 local authorities intend to increase the cost to children in coming months. Writing in today’s Observer , chef and food campaigner Jamie Oliver says he hopes the government will continue to invest in “quality school food, and the integral support and training of kitchen staff”. He writes: “I believe that any compromise on a child’s right to a healthy school lunch… is child abuse on an unimaginable scale.” Doncaster council will increase the price of a lunch by 17% tomorrow to £2.10. By the end of the month, Lewisham plans to raise its prices by 14% to £1.60 and Blackpool is planning a 7% rise in the next academic year to £2.10. Bolton council has announced that it will scrap its hugely popular £1-a-meal policy in September and increase the price to £1.50 by January next year. Schools that have taken over responsibility from local authorities for providing meals to pupils are also expected to increase their prices. In Poole, the council said that the average price charged by schools would rise by around 11p to £2.50 in this financial year. In Somerset the price in some schools recently increased to £2.60 and could rise further. Meanwhile, six meals services in the area have closed because their future was deemed financially unviable. It is feared that more schools plan to stop providing hot meals. Wendy Green, the council’s transforming school food project manager, said she had concerns for rural schools where delivery costs were an added expense. “These services are going to struggle with the loss of that funding. Four years ago we only had hot meals in 30% of primary schools, now we have them in 80%. My concern is that we are going to start dropping back below 80%. Our prices are variable, but most are charging between £2.25 and £2.60 for a two-course meal for a primary school child. That’s a lot of money for a family with two or three children. If it doesn’t go on the meal price, parents could be faced with a significant hike. A lot of parents won’t be willing to pay that and then those services will not be viable because the uptake will be low.” Research from the Schools Food Trust shows that the uptake of school meals is sensitive to price changes. A paper commissioned in 2009 suggests that a rise in the price of a school meal prompts a corresponding fall in take-up. Carmel McConnell, from the child nutrition charity Magic Breakfasts, said she feared an escalation in malnutrition in schools. She said: “I think we will see more cases of scurvy and other conditions.” Children eating healthy school dinners promoted by celebrity chef Jamie Oliver six years ago enjoyed dramatically improved test results, according to research undertaken by academics at Oxford and Essex universities. The chef’s nutritious meals were more effective than the government’s daily literacy hour at raising standards of English in primary schools. Where healthy meals were eaten there was a rise of 4.5% in English Sats results in the first schools where the scheme was tried. This compared with a 3.2% rise linked to the introduction of structured daily literacy lessons. Pupils took less time off sick. For his Jamie’s School Dinners series in 2005, Oliver visited a school in Greenwich, south-east London, and insisted that it scrap Turkey Twizzlers and chips in favour of nutrient-rich foods such as fish and broccoli. This spawned the Feed Me Better campaign with the wider goal of improving school dinners. The price rises will affect any child whose parents collectively earn more than £16,000 a year, the threshold for a free school meal. A spokesman for the Department for Education said: “We make no apologies for giving headteachers complete freedom over their budgets – they know what’s best for their pupils. The tough nutrition standards remain in place.” Jamie Oliver Sadly, politicians can have short memories. Back in 2005, when I took the school dinners petitioned to Downing Street, members from all parties were queuing up to say how school dinners needed to be radically improved and how important investment and a long-term food strategy was. Parents, teachers and the media across the country were shocked at the standard of food their kids were being fed 190 days a year from the ages of four to 16, during – the most precious years of their lives. We all fought hard to get new money injected into the system. I had a positive meeting with Michael Gove before Christmas, and for the country’s sake I hope he ensures the continued investment in quality school food, and the integral support and training of kitchen staff where needed. Food education in schools is also incredibly important. It was made compulsory for children in secondary schools in 2008, and is only due to come into schools this September. But already it is now under threat of being removed from the curriculum completely. It’s the long-term health, happiness and productivity of the future of our country that is at risk. I believe that any compromise on a child’s right to a healthy school lunch or their access to learning about food, where it comes from and what it does to their body is child abuse on an unimaginable scale. Credit to Labour for justly pioneering the school food changes. I hope that the coalition government will only improve on what they (the previous government) started. School meals Schools Nutrition Jamie Oliver Michael Gove Health & wellbeing Food & drink Children Health Daniel Boffey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Fifteen-year-old with rare condition makes legal history in bid to force Derbyshire primary care trust to pay for his medicine A 15-year-old boy who suffers from a rare medical condition that means he cannot eat protein is to make legal history by becoming the first child to sue his local health authority under the Human Rights Act. The boy’s lawyers claim that he will suffer both physical and mental retardation at a critical time in his adolescent development unless Derbyshire primary care trust agrees to fund a drug that helps him consume a normal diet. The boy, who is referred to as NL, is said by his solicitor to be half the weight of normal children because of his condition, phenylketonuria, or PKU. The rare condition affects one in 15,000 people, making it difficult for them to produce an enzyme that breaks down the protein found in meat, chicken, fish, eggs, nuts and cheese. It is sometimes fatal. Derbyshire PCT has refused to pay for the boy to receive Kuvan, a drug that can alleviate the condition and costs £30,000 a year, on the grounds that he is not an exceptional case and there are alternatives available such as a synthetic food diet. The case, one of the first to invoke the Human Rights Act against a PCT, is highly unusual because the claim against the PCT is being made under article six, the right to a fair trial, and article eight, respect for family life. The boy’s lawyers claim article six is relevant because of the way in which the PCT reached a decision not to fund the drug. They also say the boy’s mother has had to give up her job because of the stress on the family, while his two younger brothers have suffered because his poor diet has left him often short-tempered, indicating that a claim under article eight is also valid. His family has raised sufficient funds to pay for a one-year course of Kuvan, but they say their resources have now run out. The boy’s father, Max, said his son may soon have to return to a synthetic diet that he has refused to eat in the past, leaving him prone to malnutrition. Since the boy started taking the drug, which is widely available in other EU countries, he has made a dramatic improvement, according to his family and experts at Birmingham children’s hospital who have observed him. The boy has been able to eat small amounts of protein – about a third of a normal child’s intake, which is equivalent to a bowl of cereal a day without milk. He has gained weight as a result. His father said the family was not asking the PCT to supply the drug indefinitely, but for the next three years, during which time the increased protein intake could help NL with his adolescent growth spurt. “We have pretty much spent our life savings,” Max said. “We are down to selling our house to continue. If not, I’ve got to put my son through more pain by taking him off the drug.” He said that since NL had been on the drug it was “like having a different son. His whole character has changed. He’s less angry, easier to deal with, far more tolerant, more relaxed, more humorous, his confidence has improved and he’s more able to concentrate.” Oliver Wright, of MPH solicitors who are acting on behalf of NL, said: “The PCT said we couldn’t prove that it works and that it only works for one in four people with the condition. Well, my client has paid for it for a year and shown it works. He’s put on weight, he’s grown, he’s happier.” The PCT, which declined to comment, was preparing to fight the case in court after proceedings were issued against it in February. However, after a series of legal wrangles, it has now referred a decision to its specialist individual funding request panel. If the panel declines to approve funding, the boy’s lawyers will seek a judicial review into how the PCT reached its original decision. The case is being studied closely by medical lawyers. Experts predict an increasing number of patients will use the Human Rights Act to demand access to expensive drugs and surgery. This week the High Court is expected to deliver its verdict in the case of Tom Condliff, a diabetic who says he will die within a year if Staffordshire primary care trust refuses to pay £5,500 for him to have a gastric bypass. His legal team has argued that without the operation there is a significant chance he will lose some of his limbs, making the cost of caring for him far outweigh that of the operation. But lawyers for Staffordshire PCT have said that National Institute of Clinical Excellence (Nice) guidelines make it clear that he does not qualify for surgery in his current condition. The case is the first to have been brought under the Human Rights Act against a PCT, with Condliff’s legal team arguing that, under article two, the Staffordshire trust must respect their client’s right to life. If it is successful, similar applications are expected to be made at many of the UK’s 159 PCTs. Human Rights Act Health NHS Jamie Doward guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Fifteen-year-old with rare condition makes legal history in bid to force Derbyshire primary care trust to pay for his medicine A 15-year-old boy who suffers from a rare medical condition that means he cannot eat protein is to make legal history by becoming the first child to sue his local health authority under the Human Rights Act. The boy’s lawyers claim that he will suffer both physical and mental retardation at a critical time in his adolescent development unless Derbyshire primary care trust agrees to fund a drug that helps him consume a normal diet. The boy, who is referred to as NL, is said by his solicitor to be half the weight of normal children because of his condition, phenylketonuria, or PKU. The rare condition affects one in 15,000 people, making it difficult for them to produce an enzyme that breaks down the protein found in meat, chicken, fish, eggs, nuts and cheese. It is sometimes fatal. Derbyshire PCT has refused to pay for the boy to receive Kuvan, a drug that can alleviate the condition and costs £30,000 a year, on the grounds that he is not an exceptional case and there are alternatives available such as a synthetic food diet. The case, one of the first to invoke the Human Rights Act against a PCT, is highly unusual because the claim against the PCT is being made under article six, the right to a fair trial, and article eight, respect for family life. The boy’s lawyers claim article six is relevant because of the way in which the PCT reached a decision not to fund the drug. They also say the boy’s mother has had to give up her job because of the stress on the family, while his two younger brothers have suffered because his poor diet has left him often short-tempered, indicating that a claim under article eight is also valid. His family has raised sufficient funds to pay for a one-year course of Kuvan, but they say their resources have now run out. The boy’s father, Max, said his son may soon have to return to a synthetic diet that he has refused to eat in the past, leaving him prone to malnutrition. Since the boy started taking the drug, which is widely available in other EU countries, he has made a dramatic improvement, according to his family and experts at Birmingham children’s hospital who have observed him. The boy has been able to eat small amounts of protein – about a third of a normal child’s intake, which is equivalent to a bowl of cereal a day without milk. He has gained weight as a result. His father said the family was not asking the PCT to supply the drug indefinitely, but for the next three years, during which time the increased protein intake could help NL with his adolescent growth spurt. “We have pretty much spent our life savings,” Max said. “We are down to selling our house to continue. If not, I’ve got to put my son through more pain by taking him off the drug.” He said that since NL had been on the drug it was “like having a different son. His whole character has changed. He’s less angry, easier to deal with, far more tolerant, more relaxed, more humorous, his confidence has improved and he’s more able to concentrate.” Oliver Wright, of MPH solicitors who are acting on behalf of NL, said: “The PCT said we couldn’t prove that it works and that it only works for one in four people with the condition. Well, my client has paid for it for a year and shown it works. He’s put on weight, he’s grown, he’s happier.” The PCT, which declined to comment, was preparing to fight the case in court after proceedings were issued against it in February. However, after a series of legal wrangles, it has now referred a decision to its specialist individual funding request panel. If the panel declines to approve funding, the boy’s lawyers will seek a judicial review into how the PCT reached its original decision. The case is being studied closely by medical lawyers. Experts predict an increasing number of patients will use the Human Rights Act to demand access to expensive drugs and surgery. This week the High Court is expected to deliver its verdict in the case of Tom Condliff, a diabetic who says he will die within a year if Staffordshire primary care trust refuses to pay £5,500 for him to have a gastric bypass. His legal team has argued that without the operation there is a significant chance he will lose some of his limbs, making the cost of caring for him far outweigh that of the operation. But lawyers for Staffordshire PCT have said that National Institute of Clinical Excellence (Nice) guidelines make it clear that he does not qualify for surgery in his current condition. The case is the first to have been brought under the Human Rights Act against a PCT, with Condliff’s legal team arguing that, under article two, the Staffordshire trust must respect their client’s right to life. If it is successful, similar applications are expected to be made at many of the UK’s 159 PCTs. Human Rights Act Health NHS Jamie Doward guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Fifteen-year-old with rare condition makes legal history in bid to force Derbyshire primary care trust to pay for his medicine A 15-year-old boy who suffers from a rare medical condition that means he cannot eat protein is to make legal history by becoming the first child to sue his local health authority under the Human Rights Act. The boy’s lawyers claim that he will suffer both physical and mental retardation at a critical time in his adolescent development unless Derbyshire primary care trust agrees to fund a drug that helps him consume a normal diet. The boy, who is referred to as NL, is said by his solicitor to be half the weight of normal children because of his condition, phenylketonuria, or PKU. The rare condition affects one in 15,000 people, making it difficult for them to produce an enzyme that breaks down the protein found in meat, chicken, fish, eggs, nuts and cheese. It is sometimes fatal. Derbyshire PCT has refused to pay for the boy to receive Kuvan, a drug that can alleviate the condition and costs £30,000 a year, on the grounds that he is not an exceptional case and there are alternatives available such as a synthetic food diet. The case, one of the first to invoke the Human Rights Act against a PCT, is highly unusual because the claim against the PCT is being made under article six, the right to a fair trial, and article eight, respect for family life. The boy’s lawyers claim article six is relevant because of the way in which the PCT reached a decision not to fund the drug. They also say the boy’s mother has had to give up her job because of the stress on the family, while his two younger brothers have suffered because his poor diet has left him often short-tempered, indicating that a claim under article eight is also valid. His family has raised sufficient funds to pay for a one-year course of Kuvan, but they say their resources have now run out. The boy’s father, Max, said his son may soon have to return to a synthetic diet that he has refused to eat in the past, leaving him prone to malnutrition. Since the boy started taking the drug, which is widely available in other EU countries, he has made a dramatic improvement, according to his family and experts at Birmingham children’s hospital who have observed him. The boy has been able to eat small amounts of protein – about a third of a normal child’s intake, which is equivalent to a bowl of cereal a day without milk. He has gained weight as a result. His father said the family was not asking the PCT to supply the drug indefinitely, but for the next three years, during which time the increased protein intake could help NL with his adolescent growth spurt. “We have pretty much spent our life savings,” Max said. “We are down to selling our house to continue. If not, I’ve got to put my son through more pain by taking him off the drug.” He said that since NL had been on the drug it was “like having a different son. His whole character has changed. He’s less angry, easier to deal with, far more tolerant, more relaxed, more humorous, his confidence has improved and he’s more able to concentrate.” Oliver Wright, of MPH solicitors who are acting on behalf of NL, said: “The PCT said we couldn’t prove that it works and that it only works for one in four people with the condition. Well, my client has paid for it for a year and shown it works. He’s put on weight, he’s grown, he’s happier.” The PCT, which declined to comment, was preparing to fight the case in court after proceedings were issued against it in February. However, after a series of legal wrangles, it has now referred a decision to its specialist individual funding request panel. If the panel declines to approve funding, the boy’s lawyers will seek a judicial review into how the PCT reached its original decision. The case is being studied closely by medical lawyers. Experts predict an increasing number of patients will use the Human Rights Act to demand access to expensive drugs and surgery. This week the High Court is expected to deliver its verdict in the case of Tom Condliff, a diabetic who says he will die within a year if Staffordshire primary care trust refuses to pay £5,500 for him to have a gastric bypass. His legal team has argued that without the operation there is a significant chance he will lose some of his limbs, making the cost of caring for him far outweigh that of the operation. But lawyers for Staffordshire PCT have said that National Institute of Clinical Excellence (Nice) guidelines make it clear that he does not qualify for surgery in his current condition. The case is the first to have been brought under the Human Rights Act against a PCT, with Condliff’s legal team arguing that, under article two, the Staffordshire trust must respect their client’s right to life. If it is successful, similar applications are expected to be made at many of the UK’s 159 PCTs. Human Rights Act Health NHS Jamie Doward guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Boy, and you thought the deposition Rick Scott gave in the anti-trust suit against Columbia/HCA Health was sleazy? What he’s doing to disabled people in Florida really takes the cake. You know, I’ve seen a lot of really awful things done by Republican governors in the past few months, but this really, really takes the cake: Florida Gov. Rick Scott ordered deep cuts Thursday to programs that serve tens of thousands of residents with Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, autism and other developmental disabilities. Though a range of state services face cuts from this year’s Legislature, the governor invoked his emergency powers to order the state Agency for Persons with Disabilities to immediately roll back payments to group homes and social workers by 15 percent — an amount providers say could put them out of business and threaten their clients’ safety. “lt’s not like, ‘Gee, does this mean I have to skip a vacation this year?’” said Amy Van Bergen, executive director of the Down Syndrome Association of Central Florida. “Potentially, these cuts have life and death implications for these people.” An estimated 30,000 Floridians with severe developmental disabilities receive services that help them live outside of nursing homes — typically with family or in small group homes. Aides help them eat, bathe, take medication and otherwise care for themselves. Yes, but are they a PROFIT CENTER? I think not! And the new Republican governor says he’s running the state like a business. Yes, Gov. Rick “I’m Running Florida Just Like I Ran My Fraudulent Healthcare Business” Scott thinks the agency simply spends too much money . The agency responds that the legislature routinely underestimates the actual needs instead of creating an honest budget. Hmm, who to believe? Considering that 19,000 disabled people are on the waiting list for state services, I’m going to go with the “underfunding services” explanation! And for even more Florida fun? A House bill that would give the governor and Cabinet more power to repeal rules passed through a subcommittee with no discussion. HB 993 would allow Cabinet members during their first six months in office to repeal rules if they are obsolete or if they conflict with policies they are trying to implement . The repeal could be challenged, but Cabinet members could individually override the challenge. An objection to the override could be filed with the 1st District Court of Appeal.
Continue reading …Boy, and you thought the deposition Rick Scott gave in the anti-trust suit against Columbia/HCA Health was sleazy? What he’s doing to disabled people in Florida really takes the cake. You know, I’ve seen a lot of really awful things done by Republican governors in the past few months, but this really, really takes the cake: Florida Gov. Rick Scott ordered deep cuts Thursday to programs that serve tens of thousands of residents with Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, autism and other developmental disabilities. Though a range of state services face cuts from this year’s Legislature, the governor invoked his emergency powers to order the state Agency for Persons with Disabilities to immediately roll back payments to group homes and social workers by 15 percent — an amount providers say could put them out of business and threaten their clients’ safety. “lt’s not like, ‘Gee, does this mean I have to skip a vacation this year?’” said Amy Van Bergen, executive director of the Down Syndrome Association of Central Florida. “Potentially, these cuts have life and death implications for these people.” An estimated 30,000 Floridians with severe developmental disabilities receive services that help them live outside of nursing homes — typically with family or in small group homes. Aides help them eat, bathe, take medication and otherwise care for themselves. Yes, but are they a PROFIT CENTER? I think not! And the new Republican governor says he’s running the state like a business. Yes, Gov. Rick “I’m Running Florida Just Like I Ran My Fraudulent Healthcare Business” Scott thinks the agency simply spends too much money . The agency responds that the legislature routinely underestimates the actual needs instead of creating an honest budget. Hmm, who to believe? Considering that 19,000 disabled people are on the waiting list for state services, I’m going to go with the “underfunding services” explanation! And for even more Florida fun? A House bill that would give the governor and Cabinet more power to repeal rules passed through a subcommittee with no discussion. HB 993 would allow Cabinet members during their first six months in office to repeal rules if they are obsolete or if they conflict with policies they are trying to implement . The repeal could be challenged, but Cabinet members could individually override the challenge. An objection to the override could be filed with the 1st District Court of Appeal.
Continue reading …Boy, and you thought the deposition Rick Scott gave in the anti-trust suit against Columbia/HCA Health was sleazy? What he’s doing to disabled people in Florida really takes the cake. You know, I’ve seen a lot of really awful things done by Republican governors in the past few months, but this really, really takes the cake: Florida Gov. Rick Scott ordered deep cuts Thursday to programs that serve tens of thousands of residents with Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, autism and other developmental disabilities. Though a range of state services face cuts from this year’s Legislature, the governor invoked his emergency powers to order the state Agency for Persons with Disabilities to immediately roll back payments to group homes and social workers by 15 percent — an amount providers say could put them out of business and threaten their clients’ safety. “lt’s not like, ‘Gee, does this mean I have to skip a vacation this year?’” said Amy Van Bergen, executive director of the Down Syndrome Association of Central Florida. “Potentially, these cuts have life and death implications for these people.” An estimated 30,000 Floridians with severe developmental disabilities receive services that help them live outside of nursing homes — typically with family or in small group homes. Aides help them eat, bathe, take medication and otherwise care for themselves. Yes, but are they a PROFIT CENTER? I think not! And the new Republican governor says he’s running the state like a business. Yes, Gov. Rick “I’m Running Florida Just Like I Ran My Fraudulent Healthcare Business” Scott thinks the agency simply spends too much money . The agency responds that the legislature routinely underestimates the actual needs instead of creating an honest budget. Hmm, who to believe? Considering that 19,000 disabled people are on the waiting list for state services, I’m going to go with the “underfunding services” explanation! And for even more Florida fun? A House bill that would give the governor and Cabinet more power to repeal rules passed through a subcommittee with no discussion. HB 993 would allow Cabinet members during their first six months in office to repeal rules if they are obsolete or if they conflict with policies they are trying to implement . The repeal could be challenged, but Cabinet members could individually override the challenge. An objection to the override could be filed with the 1st District Court of Appeal.
Continue reading …This Thom Hartmann segment about the history of the Boston Tea Party and the spark that lit the movement is extraordinarily enlightening. Multinational corporations were controlling the people, and the government was supporting the corporations. In particular, the East India Company sparked rebellion, since they were given so many exemptions, tax preferences and other breaks by the British government. Watch the whole thing. It’s fascinating.
Continue reading …