Doubts cast on Howard’s “20 month wait” claims
Severe doubt has been cast on the veracity of Michael Howard’s claim that one of his constituents was told to wait 20 months for treatment for breast cancer on the NHS.
During Wednesday’s fiery Prime Minister’s Question Time, Mr Howard repeatedly raised the case of his constituent demanding: “Why can’t she get choice?”
Mr Howard used the case to dismiss Labour claims of improvements in waiting times, and highlight his plans for “choice” in the NHS whereby patients would be able to chose which hospital they are treated at.
When members of the media attempted to investigate the case they were directed to the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, where they were told that no patient had to wait 20 months for radiotherapy.
In a statement, the trust said: “The longest wait for radiotherapy, as of Monday of this week, was 14 weeks for low-risk cancers where it was either clinically safe to wait or radiotherapy formed part of a follow-up treatment,”
Last night the Shadow Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley defended Mr Howard’s use of the example.
He told BBC Two’s Newsnight that: “Michael Howard represented his constituent and we all have a responsibility to do that in Parliament.”
“The issue Michael Howard was making was that if his constituent was waiting a long time for radiotherapy treatment, why shouldn’t she have the opportunity to go somewhere else.”
Mr Lansley continued: “He was not setting out to say ‘sort out the treatment that should be provided to my constituent,’ he was raising the point that you should not wait more than two months for treatment.”
“If it was 20 weeks and not 20 months, then admittedly that was wrong, but the constituent may have got it wrong and Michael Howard got it wrong as a consequence.”
He added: “However the point is the same one, which is why can’t a constituent or any person who has a long wait, and 20 weeks would be a long wait for radiotherapy treatment, go somewhere else for the treatment where the wait might be a lot shorter.”
Liberal Democrat health spokesman, Paul Burstow, said: “It’s always a mistake for politicians to use individual patients to score party points. If his figures prove to be wrong Mr Howard should apologise to the hospital concerned and for misleading Parliament”
He added that if the claims of inaccuracy are right, “Michael Howard has been exposed yet again for using the old Tory ploy of talking down the NHS.”
