Skip to main content

Will 1 April mark the beginning of the end of England’s NHS?


Today on bmj.com, two professors debate whether the NHS reforms, which come into play on 1 April, mean the end of the NHS.

David Hunter, professor of health policy and management at the School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health at Durham University believes that the “NHS will never be the same again” and that the changes, which are like nothing seen before, “should not be underestimated”.

Professor Hunter writes that once the Section 75 regulations in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 are passed they will allow competition to “freewheel” as more and more services will be put out to competitive tender, consequently “embedding market competition as the driving force in the NHS”. As such, he believes the NHS will begin to run under a different set of values which will “not be in the public interest”.

He says following a “marketization” programme in Sweden, profit-driven health services increased inequities with big cities and high income earners being favoured over rural areas and low income earners. Low income patients had reduced access to primary care.

Professor Hunter concludes that if we are to save the NHS, a public debate is urgently required on "where markets should operate” and “where they should not”.

On the other hand, Julian Le Grand, Richard Titmuss Professor of Social Policy at the London School of Economics, argues that the reforms will not mean the end of the NHS. Instead he says that that there is no need to fear the competition which will provide the challenge needed to improve NHS hospitals.

Drawing in part on his experience as senior policy adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair from 2003 to 2005, Professor Le Grand says that competition has had a positive impact on the quality of management with “knock-on effects on hospital quality”. He bases these conclusions on research from the London School of Economics, the University of Bristol and elsewhere that found that when more patient choice was introduced in England, hospital quality improved faster in more competitive areas. And he draws attention to research demonstrating that patient choice has the potential to improve quality further.

He also says that the privatisation worry is “odd”, given that large parts of the NHS, including most GP practices, are already private. He points out that many of the new providers will be social enterprises and mutuals; organisations that have a track record of out-performing the conventional private sector.

Professor Le Grand concludes that previous reforms did not lead to disaster or system collapse and instead contributed to a “steady improvement in the quality of care”. If anything signals the end of the NHS, he says, it will not be these reforms but the “Government’s determination […] to impose ill-conceived austerity measures on the public sector”.

An editorial from Clare Gerada, Chair of the Council of the Royal College of General Practitioners, also published today on bmj.com asks what clinical commissioning groups should do on 1 April.

She says that the government’s claims that general practitioners will lead commissioning are "misleading" and while trusted GPs will "bear the brunt" of the public’s wrath, much of the health budget will be handed over to the "for-profit commercial sector" which will lead to services closing and the erosion of entitlements to universal healthcare.

She says that although both Andrew Lansley and Simon Burns said that it was not the government’s intention to force commissioners to put services out to tender, the latest legal opinion says that only in "exceptional cases" would competitive tendering not be allowable and now even the government’s officials "don’t know what to make of the new regulations".

She says that given the current confusion between the regulations and Ministerial assurances, Clinical Commissioning Groups are between a rock and a hard place. She adds that the only sensible, safe and fair course of action is to have a “legislative pause” and for ministers to “revoke the regulations while they undergo proper legal scrutiny”.

Dr Gerada concludes that putting GPs in a position of overlooking the "dismantling of our NHS" is a "monumental betrayal" by the government; one that will damage the trust between GPs and patients.

Also available on bmj.com is Terence Stephenson’s (Professor of Child Health, and Chair of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges) statement on the withdrawal of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Bill 2012 following a letter to the Health Minister Earl Howe.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As