All Pregnant Women To Be Handed £3,000.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3459425/Home-birth-revolution-pregnant-women-handed-3-000-personal-midwives-overhaul-maternity-services.html

Although it is reported that there are an increasing number of deaths both of new born babies as well as mothers, with some of our maternity services, but will this 'in-hand' £3,000 be an incentive for some mothers to take the risk of acquiring the services of non-professional midwives, as was once the practice?

Forgive me ladies if I have not worded this properly, but as a mere elderly gentleman I am sure you will understand where I am coming from?

[Mamyalynne]

The way I read it they are not given the money 'in hand'.

//Mothers-to-be will not be handed the money directly but midwives and doctors will help them draw up a maternity plan setting out exactly how it will be spent.//

The majority of women don't need to be in hospital for a safe birth to happen and it is very expensive, so there is sense behind this plan.

[janbee]

Better not to get knocked up in the first place.

[hc4361]

Back in the 1960s women were paid in hard cash by the NHS to have a home birth.

This is different, as Mamya says. No cash will be given to the mum-to-be

[Mamyalynne]

No one Janbee ?


Cancel childbirth altogether?

[woofgang]

"Mothers-to-be will not be handed the money directly but midwives and doctors will help them draw up a maternity plan setting out exactly how it will be spent”


The Daily mail contradicts its own headline.

[viv41]

Easier said than done janbee (haha) ......

[hc4361]

The DM likes attention grabbing headlines. I think it assumes the majority of the readers never read any further

[jackthehat]

It appears that quite a lot don't, hc....:o)

[woofgang]

oh I think we all understand where you are coming from AOG!

[Sqad]

All women should have their babies in hospital and not at home, whether they want it or not. Less complications and medical staff on the spot to deal with them. Problem is......that not enough money is spent on the hospitals and too much on primary care.

Another politically driven scheme to fool those who like the thought of state medicine.

[Mamyalynne]

You were a home birth then Fender. It used to be the norm didn't it?

[mikey4444]

The DM, with a screaming headline, that does not accord with the facts....as usual then !

[anotheoldgit]

Yes hands up in the air, I did read all of it, but I misread the

"Mothers-to-be will not be handed the money directly but midwives and doctors will help them draw up a maternity plan setting out exactly how it will be spent",

lines,

Apologies to all, but then it gave the anti Daily Mail brigade yet another chance to get their usual digs in, so for them it was not in vain.

[mikey4444]

I am no way blaming you AOG...from the headline it was an understandable mistake to have made.

Here is how it appeared in my Guardian today ::

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/23/national-maternity-review-calls-for-personal-care-budgets

Perhaps you should consider changing to another newspaper AOG !

[Svejk]

^Lol. In the same week The Guardian, begrudgingly, admitted to using misleading headlines.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/22/accusations-of-bias-in-coverage-of-the-israel-palestine-conflict

[Cloverjo]

Sorry, I can't read the link. To me, the budget is a ridiculous idea. Some women have easy pregnancies and labour, and need only the basic scans, advice and help during birth. Others have difficult pregnancies and require a whole raft of hospital stays, observations, Caesarean and who knows what else.
What happens when these women "run out" of their budget? And what happens to the money that is left over from the easy pregnancies? How do they manage the budget? Is the hourly rate of every midwife or doctor calculated and deducted from each woman's budget?
I am mindful of the fact that this is a DM report so might not be all it seems.

[woofgang]

Cloverjo from my days in the NHS, the “budget” idea is a way of working out where to put the money for services. If x number of women are choosing to have community births, then the money goes into community services, if the preference goes to hospital admissions, then the budget goes to hospitals. The figure quoted is not what women will be told they have to “spend” but the average cost of a normal birth. Over and above this NHS funding will still have to be provided for mothers and babies who need special monitoring or special services and also of course for emergency facilities. A similar calculation has been used for many years for things like cataract surgery and joint replacement where the patient can choose where and when to have the op from a range of options. the system is called “the money follows the patient” Hospitals and community services (usually based around GP surgeries) negotiate to set up services and will agree a price per case (in this case 3,000 quid), also how many cases they can accommodate and the level of complexity that they can safely deal with. Its then in their interest to offer an excellent service so that as many people as possible choose them.
Properly applied, the system has benefits. people can choose to have their joint replacement near to their family so they don’t have to go home to be alone. In the same way, this should give women (and their partners) more choice over where and how they want to give birth and what pre and post natal support they want instead of being told “this is what you will get because that;’s what’s available"

[joeluke]

Another stupid idea

Pregnant? Go have your baby in the nearest hospital

Just like choosing which school your kid goes to - they should go to the one nearest where you live

[Zacs-Master]

And why do you think they don't Joe?