IN response to the rhetorical question posed by Mrs Jan Buck, 'Are changes about saving money?' (Letters, 20.07.07), one can safely assume that the answer is a resounding yes. As she so rightly asks, how can having one doctor to cover two hospitals approximately ten miles apart be considered a provision for the better care for the patients? This proposal is yet another example of the dilution of the past healthcare provided locally, as was the change in the out of hours doctors' coverage and the service offered by the local minor injuries units. The 'imported' out of hours cover for our local doctors has led to me hearing some disturbing reports on the service provided, and bears witness to the old saying 'you only get what you pay for'. Every time economies are proposed for the health service, it seems that the frontline services are the natural target, whereas the administrators remain, one assumes, to quantify the alleged overall budget savings made and to report them as a success to feed their collective ego and to impress the medically disadvantaged populace. The way things are going, the 'jewel in the crown' of the local health service, Liskeard Community Hospital, will become, in essence, a nursing home with part-time outpatient clinics. This, of course, is a waste of the annual health funding, as the hospital, whatever its use, has to be paid for under the PFI agreement which led to the construction of the facility in the first place. Is this an example of the efficiencies of the highly paid financial management that is draining the stretched resources of the National Health Service coffers?
DEREK T FLOWERS Liskeard