This latest evidence of a postcode lottery shows Tameside primary care trust spends £65 a year per head of population treating the disease compared to £115 at Trafford.
The research showed startling differences in spending across the country - leading the Liberal Democrats to attack `unaccountable' health bosses.
It also reveals the varying spending on mental health services and heart disease.
Regional health chiefs questioned the accuracy of the report but said they would be assessing spending decisions rigorously as part of an upcoming review.
The Ashton, Leigh and Wigan trust put £129 per person into mental health treatment compared to £209 in Manchester. Salford health bosses spent £114 on heart disease compared to £167 in Stockport.
Prof John Appleby from the King's Fund, who compiled the report, said: "Even when local need and other legitimate reasons for variations in spending are taken into account, trusts continue to spend varying amounts on cancer, coronary heart disease, mental health and a range of other diseases." Tameside and Glossop primary care trust say they have already increased their spending on cancer services to be `closer to the national average'.
Access
A spokesman said: "Local people have good access to cancer services. We have further invested in early diagnosis services, which means cancers are diagnosed early so that treatments can be more effective." A spokeswoman for Salford PCT said: "We take our responsibility for being in charge of the NHS budget locally very seriously. Cancer, circulatory disease and improving people's mental health are all high priorities and the investment in these areas reflects this.
"We welcome the report and will study the figures regarding investment by other local primary care trusts and in comparison with the rest of England to see if there are any lessons for us to learn in Salford."
Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb said: "This analysis points to an unacceptable postcode lottery of care with trusts totally unaccountable to the communities they serve." Mike Farrar, chief executive of regional health authority NHS North West, said: "Local NHS organisations are required and therefore able to make decisions on spending priorities based on their knowledge of the needs of their local population.
"These figures reflect a wide range of need and we should also be cautious about the accuracy of reporting these budgets.
"Absolute levels of expenditure are not necessarily a good guide to the quality of services that the trust secures for its residents." Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Once again we see Tameside at the bottom of the table,its absolutely disgusting what the Councillors,MP`s and PCT get away with in Tameside,ruled by people without consciences,the highest pollution levels,the worst traffic congestion,the most unmarried mothers,among the top for obesity,the list is endless what happens in Tameside.Councillors hold office on the PCT,Labour MP`s
control the PCT`s budgets,and the PCT offices are totally jam packed with clerical staff and so-called administrators whilst Cancer and Heart patients are treated with financial contempt.Lets have a clean out of all those who pretend to care for the Electorate whilst they stuff their pockets and bank accounts without consciences for those in Tameside getting the worst deal in these league tables.
No excuses,no cover ups,and no denials,its time you went
Tameside Administrators your less than a joke once again,but you are smirking whilst Cancer and Heart afflicted people are left disadvantaged through your incompetance.
How very strange the Tameside Advertiser the very local paper at the heart of this shocking disclosure on Tamesiders Health published the item September 11th but decided not to show the item on their Full List of News Items on their Internet Site,therefore no comments facility was offered on this major issue.
Should this decision be seriously investigated,because those with Cancer and Heart Diseases in Tameside should have internet access through the Tameside Advertiser for comments on a published article which denotes blatant discrimination regarding their illnesses.