NHS in shock evidence based revelation!!!

I guess like most people you have been told about the "wasteful and unproductive" NHS. Indeed the current "reforms" (like stripping out £20Billion over the next 4 years) are predicated on this kind of rhetoric. How unfortunate then that a paper profiled in todays press that has been published in that organ of leftist dissent The Lancet by Prof Nick Black  (I jest about the political leanings of that august journal) gives the lie to that assertion. In fact it produces evidence quite to the contrary. I quote from todays Guardian online.
" Black produces a slew of evidence that questions the analysis of the Office of National Statistics used to work out the productivity of the health service. The ONS looked at the return for taxpayers by comparing public expenditure with how much patients used the health service and what the outcomes were.
Black's work, the first of its kind, argues that the measures the ONS used do not reflect the substantial improvements in NHS care. It points out that between 2000 and 2009, such were the advances that a baby born in 2009 could expect to live three years longer than one born in 2000.
Black says far fewer people were dying in specialist procedures in the NHS. He notes declines occurred in adult critical care (2.4% a year), dialysis (3.3% a year), and coronary artery bypass surgery (4.9% a year).
Patients' experience of how they were treated also improved. There were annual relative increases in the proportion of patients treated within four hours in accident and emergency departments (2.5% a year) and in the numbers operated on within 28 days of their operation having been cancelled for non-clinical reasons (10.4% a year).
Such was the NHS's popularity that in the annual British Social Attitudes survey, 70% of respondents reported they were overall satisfied with the NHS. This was the highest figure ever recorded by the long-running survey – the lowest was 34% in 1997, at the end of the Conservatives' 18-year tenure in office."
An impressive record is it not? 
If all that seems a bit technical then cast your mind back to how long people waited for a hip replacement in the 80's. it seemed quite the norm then to wait 2-3 years.Now we seem content with a wait of 18 weeks.
Could this paper herald  the advent of evidence based policy? Now that would be a breakthrough!!