Answers needed on health overspend, says deputy
The head of Jersey's Public Accounts Committee says answers are needed on why there is an overspend in the health department.
Deputy Inna Gardiner's comments follow the publication of the States of Jersey Annual Report and Accounts which showed the government's consolidated fund - essentially its current account - was in deficit, in part, because of extra health spending.
Gardiner said: "We need to establish if there is an inherent structural deficit in health or if it's a case of bad management of money."
Minister for Treasury and Resources Deputy Elaine Millar, who oversees all government spending, said it was not bad management and the health overspend was not a problem unique to Jersey.
However, Gardiner said questions needed to be asked as the health budget had increased by nearly £100m since 2022.
She said: "We are all aware that the health department overspent in excess of £30m year after year after year.
"The health department budget in 2022 approved by the States Assembly was £226m. The budget approved for 2025 was £322m and we are already hearing that in 2025 the budget was constrained and they are going to overspend.
"So we need to understand what is happening there and how money can be spent wisely within the department."
Millar said: "We have had to invest more into our health care spending and we are not alone in doing that.
"The cost of sending people off-island for specialist care, prescriptions are becoming more expensive and it's down to the nature of the population.
"So we have had to spend more on health and we've had to take money from contingency to meet those costs."
She added: "I don't think it's bad management of money... everyone is seeing healthcare costs going up, jurisdictions have ageing populations and we need to make sure we can provide services to our whole community."
On 30 April, in a meeting with the Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel, the Minister for Health and Social Services, Deputy Tom Binet, said he would need more money for health during the next few years.
Binet told the panel: "I'll be coming to the assembly to ask for money to improve preventative health care, and women's health issues will come into that and digital connectivity.
"We will need in excess of £100m over five years and I want that additional money, I don't care where it comes from, even if it's from the strategic reserve."
However, Millar said using the strategic reserve fund was not something that had been discussed.
Millar said: "The strategic reserve fund is there for a number of reasons.
"It's not a piggy bank that you can just draw on at will. But, clearly, we will look to how we fund health.
"Jersey has a reputation for prudent financial management, and it's essential we continue that reputation, that we spend money wisely and we use money from the right sources to fund all our expenditure needs."
Binet said Health had been facing "unprecedented demands, cost increases for drugs and off-island care - all running well above inflation and additional service requirements".
He said "studious efforts" had been made over the past two years "to implement savings measures in many areas, with quite a high degree of success".
"We require a large investment in both preventative health care and digital services over the next five years in order to improve efficiency and help reduce costs, and I have been clear about my intention to take a proposition to this effect to the assembly in the next few months," he said.
"I have also stated, publicly, that I intend to hold a public consultation on the possibility of introducing some charges, in some areas of health provision, before the end of this parliament."
Follow BBC Jersey on X and Facebook. Send your story ideas to channel.islands@bbc.co.uk.
Health budget needs extra £24m a year - minister
£28m health shortfall forecast for end of the year
Government of Jersey
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The best sunscreen of 2025 – and the two to avoid
With hot weather sweeping the UK and an amber heatwave warning in place, sunscreen is something we should all be wearing on the parts of our bodies exposed to the sun. But how can you be sure your go-to bottle is doing what it promises? To help shoppers find suncreams they can trust, consumer group Which? tested a range of high street and premium options using official British and international standards. SPF (which protects against UVB rays that cause sunburn) was checked by applying sunscreen to volunteers' skin and exposing it to controlled UVB light. UVA protection (which guards against long-term skin damage and ageing) was tested in the lab by measuring how much of the sun's rays were absorbed through the cream. This year, 13 products passed with flying colours – but two missed the mark in at least one test. This supermarket-own product passed the UVA part of the testing but fell short on SPF protection. According to Which?, lab results showed an SPF of 25.7 and then 20.7 on retest – lower than the SPF30 claim and below the threshold needed to pass. The supermarket told Which? it's "looking closely at the results" and is carrying out further independent testing with its supplier. Ultrasun met the SPF requirement in testing, but failed to hit the minimum UVA protection. Which? recorded a UVA protection factor of 9.1 and 9.5 across two tests, just below the required level of 10. Ultrasun told Which? it is "fully confident in its testing protocols and that its detailed testing processes continue to not only meet, but surpass industry standards." It also said its chosen testing protocol is one of the strictest available. Tested and approved – here are the sunscreens Which? says deliver on sun protection: Boots Soltan Protect & Moisturise Lotion, £5.50 Boots Soltan Protect & Moisturise Spray, £5.50 Nivea Sun Protect & Moisture Lotion, £7.90 Lidl Cien Sun Protect Spray SPF30, £3.79 Sainsbury's Sun Protect Moisturising Lotion, £5.50 Superdrug Solait Sun Spray, £5.50 Garnier Ambre Solaire Sensitive Advanced Spray SPF50+, £11 Sainsbury's Sun Protect Moisturising Spray Lotion SPF50+, £5.75 Aldi Lacura Sensitive Sun Lotion SPF50+, £2.99 Boots Soltan Protect & Moisturise Lotion SPF50+, £5.50 Nivea Sun Protect & Moisture Spray SPF50+, £7.90 Childs Farm Fragrance-Free Sun Cream SPF50+, £12 Soltan Kids Protect & Moisturise Lotion SPF50+, £5.50 When it comes to SPF, Which? and NHS guidance suggest looking for: A minimum SPF of 30 for UVB protection A UVA protection seal (a circle with 'UVA' inside) or Boots' four- or five-star UVA rating Water resistance if you're swimming or sweating Reapplication every two hours (more if swimming or towelling off) It's worth checking the expiry date too — suncream can lose its effectiveness over time. Kids' skin is around 30% thinner than adults', which means UV rays can cause damage more quickly. Their skin also produces less melanin – the pigment that helps protect against sunburn – so they need extra protection. Look for suncream with SPF 30 or higher, ideally labelled for children or sensitive skin. Water-resistant options are a good bet too, especially if they're splashing about. Wide-brimmed hats, rash vests and UV-protective sunglasses can all help keep them covered. And if you're unsure of a brand to go for before your next top up, Which? has lots of sunscreen information on its website. Suncream helps, but it's just one part of the picture. Here's what the NHS and British Skin Foundation recommend for staying protected during exposure to the sun: Stick to the shade (11am–3pm): UV is strongest midday, so take breaks under trees, parasols or cover –just remember rays can still reflect off water or sand. Cover up well: Wear loose, tightly woven clothes, a wide-brimmed hat, and sunglasses with a CE mark, UV‑400 or 100% UV protection. Pick sun-safe fabrics: Look for clothing labelled UPF 30+ – UPF 50+ gives the best protection. Apply early, reapply often: Use sunscreen 30 minutes before heading out, then reapply every 2 hours – or sooner if you're swimming or towelling off. Use enough: Aim for 6–8 teaspoons to cover your whole body – most of us don't use enough. Check the label: Go for SPF 30+ and either 4–5 stars or a UVA-in-a-circle symbol to ensure broad protection. Don't ditch it on cloudy days: UV still gets through clouds and bounces off sand, water and snow – protection's still essential. Read more about suncream: The 4 most important things to check on your sunscreen, according to a dermatologist (Yahoo Life UK, 5-min read) Why you need sunscreen all year round, even indoors (Yahoo Life UK, 6-min read) The 8 best sunscreens for kids and adults – and the correct SPF to use for your age (Yahoo Life UK, 7-min read)
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A simple blood test could offer first reliable diagnosis for ME
A simple blood test could provide the first reliable diagnosis for myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) and end the lengthy process of trying to identify the debilitating condition, scientists have found. It's thought more than 400,000 people in the UK suffer with the condition, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Pain, brain fog and extreme low energy that does not improve with sleep are just some of the symptoms of ME. There is no cure and the cause is unknown. Currently the only way to diagnose it is by ruling out other illnesses – a long process that can mean patients wait years for a diagnosis. However, researchers at the University of Edinburgh believe they have made a breakthrough. The study published in the Journal EMBO Molecular Medicine used data from the UK Biobank – a large-scale resource based on the health data and biological samples of 500,000 UK participants. Researchers compared blood samples from 1,455 ME patients with more than 131,000 healthy people. They identified differences in cell counts and molecules that differed in concentrations between the two. The differences in samples for the ME patients were related to chronic inflammation, insulin resistance and liver dysfunction. These findings were compared and replicated in data from a group of American patients and healthy controls. Researchers found 116 'biomarkers' for ME in the blood of men and women with the condition. This is a key finding because the condition affects men and women differently. Professor Chris Ponting, of the university's Institute of Genetics and Cancer, said: 'For so long people with ME/CFS have been told it's all in their head. It's not. We see [it] in their blood. 'Evidence of a large number of replicated and diverse blood biomarkers that differentiate between ME/CFS cases and controls should dispel any lingering perception it is caused by deconditioning and exercise intolerance.' These biomarkers did not change when the participants were any more active – consistent with the view graded exercise therapy, which aims to gradually increase activity levels, is unlikely to be helpful. In fact, the largest differences were seen in people who reported post-exertional malaise. This is when the symptoms of the condition become worse even after minor physical effort. Dr Sjoerd Beentjes, of the university's School of Mathematics, said: 'Blood differences are sometimes attributed to reduced activity levels rather than ME/CFS directly. Our study provides strong evidence ME/CFS affects blood traits through paths other than activity.' However, this research is still at an early stage and there is no guarantee a test will be possible, study authors stressed. Professor Kevin McConway, Emeritus Professor of Applied Statistics, Open University, who was not part of the study, said: 'There is a lot more to do.' 'These findings could help in finding a set of blood biomarkers that can reasonably reliably distinguish people with ME/CFS from those who do not have that condition, but that, without a lot of further work, the findings do not in themselves provide such a set of biomarkers,' he added.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Health officials issue warnings as UK bakes in the first heat wave of 2025
LONDON — British health officials are warning people across the country to take precautions when out in the sun as the U.K. bakes under its first heat wave of the year. Temperatures are expected to peak at 34 degrees Celsius (93 degrees Fahrenheit) in some parts of eastern England on Saturday following a week of unusually warm weather, according to the national weather agency the Met Office. That's about 12 C (22 F) higher than normal for this time of year. The U.K. Health Security Agency has issued an amber heat health alert covering all of England because of increased health risks for people over 65 and those with heart and lung problems. 'Heat can result in serious health outcomes across the population, especially for older adults or those with pre-existing health conditions,' Dr. Agostinho Sousa, head of the UKHSA, said in a statement. 'It is therefore important to check on friends, family and neighbors who are more vulnerable and to take sensible precautions while enjoying the sun.' Saturday is expected to be the hottest day of the heat wave, with temperatures falling slightly on Sunday and dropping back into the more normal temperatures next week, the Met Office said. The heat alert is currently scheduled to remain in effect until Monday morning. Unusually, temperatures in London this week have been higher than in many parts of Western Europe. That's because the high temperatures are not the result of hot air moving north from the Iberian Peninsula or North Africa as is often the case, the Met Office said. Instead, this weather system originated in air high over the Atlantic Ocean south of Greenland. As it approaches the U.K., it descends toward ground level, causing it to warm rapidly, Chief Meteorologist Matthew Lenhert said. That said, it has been plenty hot in Europe too. Aviation enthusiasts attending the Paris Air Show in Le Bourget, north of Paris, this week sought the shade of a Boeing 777's wing, cooling off as temperatures hovered in the low 30s C (mid-80s F.) Met Office scientists this week published research showing that climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme high temperatures in the U.K. The chance of temperatures exceeding 40 Celsius (104 F) is now more than 20 times higher than it was in the 1960s, the researchers said.
