Skip to main content

"We're not advocating reforms for the sake of ideology". Health Minister Paul Burstow

Ben Goldacre has been looking at the claims of Government ministers that the evidence supports the case for their radical reforms of the NHS. John Burstow responded to Goldacres first article by writing a letter to the Guardain to which Goldacre just responded.

Here's what Goldacre says:

DON'T CHERRY-PICK NHS FINDINGS MINISTER

Last week we saw that the government had overstated the failings of the NHS by using dodgy figures (to be precise, they used misleading static figures instead of time trends). We saw that the health secretary Andrew Lansley's repeated claim that his reforms are justified by evidence was untrue: the evidence doesn't show that his price-based competition improves outcomes (if anything it makes things worse); and the evidence also doesn't show that GP consortiums improve outcomes (unless you cherry-pick only the positive findings).

It's OK if your reforms aren't supported by existing evidence: you just shouldn't claim that they are.

Now Lansley's junior minister, Paul Burstow, has kindly responded via the Guardian's letters page, repeating the same mistakes again, only more clumsily. I find this, in all seriousness, genuinely frightening from a minister, so I'll explain how he does it.

The government initially claimed that UK heart attack death rates were twice as bad as France. This was an overstatement: they are, but following recent interventions, the gap is closing so rapidly that on current trends it will have disappeared entirely by 2012. In response, Burstow cites a 2008 paper by McKee and Nolte which he says "concluded that the UK had one of the worst rates of mortality amenable to healthcare among rich nations".

Burstow either misunderstands or misrepresents this very simple and brief paper. It is a study explicitly looking at time trends, not static figures, and it once again finds that comparing 2003 with 1998, the UK still had fairly high rates of avoidable mortality, but these were falling faster than in all but one of the other 18 industrialised countries they examined. Meanwhile in the US, avoidable mortality improved at a disastrously slow pace, although they spent more money.

This is a paper showing the success of the NHS, and the fact that we are discussing such a huge improvement in avoidable mortality from Labour's first term in government is not my choosing: this is the paper that was cited by the Tory minister as evidence, bizarrely, of the NHS's recent failures.

Next Burstow says I "overlooked the impact assessment we published alongside the health and social care bill, where we present a thorough analysis of the evidence for and against our plans … studies show that GP fundholding and practice-based commissioning delivered shorter waits and fewer referrals to hospitals for patients".


You won't be surprised to hear studies show no such thing. If anything they show the opposite. Goldacre continues here. The article contains a link to Burstow's letter.

Gove's education reforms are similarly based on dodgy use of PISA stats.

Gove:

"Last week we discovered that we had fallen from 4th to 14th in the international league tables for science; 7th to 17th for reading, and 8th to 24th for maths.

How does the secretary of state explain how we were in the top 10 for all these subjects when the children sitting the tests had the majority of their education under a Conservative government, but had fallen down the rankings, relegated to the second division, when those sitting the tests had all their education under a Labour government."
Michael Gove, shadow children's secretary, House of Commons,11 December 2007


As FactCheck at Channel 4 news points out: "the researchers from the OECD say that the results do not show any evidence of a real decline in standards." "...So a man of Gove's legendary intelligence really has no excuse for trotting out these obviously misleading stats one more time." Go here. Gove's use of stats etc. to support Swedish style free schools also involves manipulation of data (e.g. ignoring recent poor Swedish performance, ignoring the performance of Finland).

Of course Labour could also use stats and evidence misleadingingly - e.g. those weapons of mass destruction.

Tories are wheeling in major reforms in health and education not because the evidence clearly supports such reforms, but because they are ideologically committed to such reforms. "We're not advocating reform for the sake of ideology" says Burstow in his response to Goldacre. Right.

Comments

jeremy said…
I adore Ben Goldacre's columns. The only pity is that there aren't more people doing what he's doing - surely it isn't that hard for journalists to check the evidence and statistics behind whatever press release they're regurgitating?

But they way, if you've not read "Bad Science" (the book), do so today.

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o