Skip to main content

NHS commissioning competition regulations should be withdrawn and replaced, says BMA

Doctors leaders have today (Thursday, 18 April) called for controversial competition rules to be withdrawn and replaced ahead of a crucial House of Lords debate next week.

In a new briefing paper sent to peers ahead of the debate, the BMA calls for the withdrawal of the regulations that detail how aspects of patient choice and competition operate under the Health and Social Care Act in England.

They should be replaced with new regulations that unambiguously reflect previous Government assurances that commissioners will not be forced to use competition when making their commissioning decisions. The BMA is pressing for this principle to be explicitly stated in the regulations.

The BMA has long argued that mandatory competition for all services risks fragmentation of services and creates unnecessary transaction costs, making it harder for the NHS in England to deliver high quality, cost-effective and integrated care to patients.

Regulations, which were first laid before Parliament in February 2013, set out how competition and patient choice would work under the Health and Social Care Act. They were intended to ensure good procurement practice, but have continued to prompt widespread concern and uncertainty about the apparent requirement for competitive tendering for most health services.

Dr Mark Porter, Chair of BMA Council, said:

“The absence of expected guidance on how the competition regulations would operate in practice, and the lack of satisfactory guarantees in these regulations, has created great uncertainty and anxiety for clinicians and patients.

“Only explicit wording in the regulations would allow patients, doctors and commissioners to be absolutely certain that clinicians will have the freedom to act in the way they consider to be in the best interests of patients.”

Dr Laurence Buckman Chair of the BMA’s GP Committee said:

“GP commissioners now have responsibility for making critical decisions about how best to provide services to patients in their locality.

“Commissioners could be put in the position of facing costly tendering processes and possible legal challenges from unsuccessful bidders because of ambiguous rules. That is why GPs want the regulations withdrawn.”

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