Holyrood health committee questions value of NHS targets

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34437835

Version 0 of 1.

MSPs have questioned whether meeting performance targets in the NHS is the best use of public money.

Holyrood's health committee warned they could result in large sums being spent securing relatively small improvements.

Health boards have spoken of pressure to meet targets resulting in funds being diverted from other projects.

Health Secretary Shona Robison said targets could help raise standards but the government had reduced the number being set.

Each year, the Scottish government agrees a set of national NHS performance targets, known as HEAT targets, which include a four-hour maximum wait in Accident and Emergency and cancer treatment times.

During an examination of health board budgets, the committee heard there was no information on how much was being spent to achieve such goals.

A focus on key targets could result in "large sums of money being spent to achieve marginal improvements" in performance, for example through the hiring of consultants, the committee's report warned.

The report added: "The committee asks the Scottish government how it makes sure that the drive to meet the HEAT targets remains an efficient use of money for NHS boards, when it is not able to establish how much it is costing boards to meet the last percentage point of these targets.

"This is especially relevant where a board's performance may only be 1-2% below the target and the money may be able to achieve much greater gains elsewhere, to the possible detriment of other projects."

Health Secretary Shona Robison said it was important that NHS performance was measured in the "right way" and the government was open to debate on the issue.

"We know that rigorous targets can deliver improved services for patients - as our health service is now delivering some of the lowest waiting times on record, she said.

"However, we do need to ensure we have the right targets for the right things and set at the right levels.

"This needs to balance delivering the best possible results for patients with allowing boards to respond to local needs and circumstances. That is why we have already reduced the targets we set boards from over 200 to just 20."