Jos Bell argues that now is the time for doctors, nurses, unions, patients and Parliamentarians to be counted and oppose Andrew Lansley's NHS proposals.
Jos Bell discusses the real life implications of the coalition’s NHS proposals
It seems the overriding hands off ethos lurking within the Lansley Bill lies in the key phrase in Clause 4 ‘the Secretary of State’s duty as to promoting autonomy’. The protesting voices of the medical and associated professions are clamorous. Last week The Times played host to a signatory letter of 301 eminent medical specialists; BMA chair Dr Hamish Meldrum and Laurence Buckman, chairman of the General Practitioners Committee, penned a strongly worded open letter pressing home the reality of the risk; letters to the BMJ, The Pulse and just about every medical journal and professional body sound the alert.
Allyson Pollock, Professor and Director for the Centre for International Public Health Policy at the University of Edinburgh ably demonstrates the conflict between cost-savings, quality and safety. Outsourcing health services to private companies only adds to the layers of unaccountability – or as Lansley would have it, “autonomy”.
Of course, Lansley’s press releases make no mention of the involvement of the private corporations such as Mars and Unilever who have played a key role in his planning meetings since September last year (possibly with a view to feeding sweet tooth and alcohol addictions on prescription?) No mention either, is made of hundreds of thousands of pounds in donations to the Conservative party from private health companies.
The Lansley ‘offer’ is one where providers (minimum being a partnership of two – aka company directors) will be able to offer services to commissioners at less than the published mandatory tariff price. Essentially the NHS is to become a car boot sale where the patient may find themselves increasingly likely to be offered a dud replica.
Notwithstanding such a purchasing squeeze, in the instance that the health needs of the local populus fall into the over-pricey range a ‘Contingency budget’ clause has also been included in the Bill. Consortia are thus encouraged to plan for savings from their annual allocation in order to stay within budget when times get tough.
This free marketeering is a completely inappropriate economic model for health care because the element of risk per patient bears no relation to the ability of the patient to pay for their care. A mutual taxpayer investment in national healthcare services produces a mutual benefit – from having a healthier work force, from keeping epidemics in check, from a greater mean level of health in the population etc; to Lansley and the rest of the front bench, however, low taxes and maximum profit appear to be all.
The development and implementation of integrated care pathways to provide seamless care for patients is an ideal which is not remotely compatible with enforced competition between providers, as proposed in the Bill. Conversely this will only make it more difficult for GPs and hospital doctors to collaborate or for different providers to work together efficiently and for the benefit of patients.
Of course none of this was even touched upon in either ruling party manifesto – but hovering spectre-like in the wings, the White Paper was hastily cobbled together by Lansley in just six weeks following the election. The initial consultation period fudged into the dog days of summer ’10 when the leadership contest was in full throttle and Andy Burnham and Mary Creagh were lone voices in the recess wilderness calling ‘foul’.
How any of this falls into the aims of the Ljubljana Charter on EU healthcare reform is a complete mystery. Rather it exploits the laudable aims of choice, prevention and primary care excellence into a twisted sister of corporate profit. This Bill is all about patient detriment and not a jot about quality care or early intervention.
Along with the majority of the medical profession, the vast majority of GPs themselves do not approve of the commissioning responsibility which is being foist upon them.
Ninety per cent of all doctor consultations are with a GP, however the assessment of GP performance is problematic – which is likely to lead to further problems in monitoring delivery, although past reference to the failure of ‘GP Fund-holding’, which was an integral part of the NHS ‘internal market’ introduced by the Thatcher government in the 1990s demonstrates the risk.
GPs will be obliged to ration services but their decisions will not necessarily be transparent or publicly accountable. Far removed from the original model of the NHS, the Commissioning Boards will be a business partnership – essentially an enterprise established for the benefit of the partners and shareholders. The question must be asked: Who is going to act as advocate for the patient and ensure all of these conflicts of interest are addressed?
This is the point where the NHS ceases to be a public service. The transfer of £80 billion pounds of public money to GP consortia is a giant shift in power away from the underpinning principles of the NHS. In the future, GP practices will employ the rump of the NHS or choose instead to employ private contractors to do the work, and their decisions will be subject to the laws of trade and competition, rather than based strictly on clinical concerns.
Practices will get bigger and, like lawyers and accountants, migrate to more hierarchical organisational models which distance themselves exponentially from the patient. To secure their viability, consortia are encouraged to aim for a patient catchment of 500,000-750,000 but will also include sub-groups to enable local communities to have meaningful clinical engagement. A profound challenge for both rural and high need urban areas alike where running costs are likely to exceed the Department of Health allocation.
Unison described the reforms as a Lansley “vanity project” for the health secretary which was:
“…unnecessary, badly-timed, ill-thought through and damaging.”
Head of health Karen Jennings argued:
“Lansley’s so-called consultation was a sham and a foregone conclusion. By forging ahead with his plans in the teeth of fierce opposition from leading health experts, patient groups, staff, unions and GPs themselves, he is showing an utter disregard for the long term future of the NHS.”
Even before the consultation period was ended, PCTs have been haemorrhaging staff with or without a redundancy notice and their premature collapse, without anything coherent to replace them, has meant that some GPs are feeling pressured into surging ahead with consortium development despite their misgivings.
Far from the much vaunted cost saving, the ‘Change Agent’ bill is a massive £3 billion where the cost savings will then be forced out of the patient care allocation (already sliced under the guise of viring the social care budget under the overall spend). It is estimated that there will be 20,900 redundancies amounting to a £1bn redundancy bill. Of course the best of these will then be re-employed by Consortia as the staff, consultants and researchers. A bargain!
In the midst of this massacre, there is a further sadness. Both Wales and Scotland with their devolved powers have developed integrated models of delivery which are starting to meet patient needs in a cost effective and co-productive way where the internal market has been declared void. Lansley is now forcing English health into a totally different direction under the patently false claim that his Bill will drive up standards and reign in prices.
The price for the nation’s health and well being is high indeed. The only thing that stands between this Bill and national disaster are those of good conscience in the Commons and the Lords for whom this travesty of consultation and implementation is just one unhealthy step too far. This is indeed the time to be counted.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
21 Responses to “The truth behind the coalition’s NHS proposals”
Hitchin England
RT @leftfootfwd: The truth behind the coalition's NHS proposals: http://bit.ly/glsEzC by @Jos21
UNISON Cymru/Wales
RT @leftfootfwd: The truth behind the coalition's NHS proposals: http://bit.ly/glsEzC by @Jos21
Alex Burton-Keeble
RT @leftfootfwd: The truth behind the coalition's NHS proposals: http://bit.ly/glsEzC by @Jos21
Anon E Mouse
Jos Bell – You say; “This free marketeering is a completely inappropriate economic model for health care because the element of risk per patient bears no relation to the ability of the patient to pay for their care.”
Firstly Labour continued this free market stuff in government but in any event this is just an alarmist statement that has nothing to do with the proposal. What you say is true but meaningless in this context. If my granny hadn’t died they wouldn’t have buried her. You should be writing articles on global warming…
Richard Blogger – Surely the point of the 14% is that the taxpayer doesn’t have to pay the real costs of the operation which need to include the staff wages, pensions etc.
You’re (unintentionally I’m sure) not comparing eggs with eggs. Just a care point fella…
Alex Marsh
I’ve quite a bit of sympathy for the concerns raised in this post, although some of the points are perhaps presented as necessary implications of what is going to happen when at this stage we could best say they are serious concerns about possible futures.
The two things that seem to characterise this government’s approach to policy making are undue haste and lack of clear thinking. Both are a feature of the changes to the Local Housing Allowance, the review of Quangos, the changes to social housing, restructuring in education, the localism reforms. Health Reform is clearly not immune.
There is a bit of a pattern emerging. It runs along some variant of the following: come up with a bizarre set of reforms in the light of the proclaimed urgent need to deal with the deficit; face a barrage of criticism from all sides, typically arguing that reform is short-sighted, ill-informed and will cost more in the longer term; try to ignore this criticism; argue that saving money was never really the main intention in the first place; think maybe a review might be necessary some time in the future just to check that it wasn’t as bad as critics suggest; cross fingers and hope that it works out. Following yesterday’s House of Lords debate we seem to have gone through most of the cycle on the LHA. We’re only at the start of it in some of the other areas.
Sure there is some special pleading going on on the part of interest groups, but when most relatively disinterested commentators are also crying foul it ought to give the Government cause for thought. For those who believe in enlightened and evidence based policy-making it is an object lesson in how not to do it. Profoundly dispiriting.
(I’ve discussed the economics of the health reform proposals a bit more in a blog post on ‘Magical Markets and Medical Muppets’ (http://bit.ly/gH4yD7))