Skip to main content

Deepening crisis in the NHS

NHS England has today called on the public, NHS staff and politicians to have an open and honest debate about the future shape of the NHS. This is set against a backdrop of flat funding which, if services continue to be delivered in the same way as now, will result in a funding gap which could grow to £30bn between 2013/14 to 2020/21. We certainly cannot have an honest debate unless  the government is willing to be transparent. A public consultation, a 'call to  action', is a little late in the day. The horse has bolted and the NHS in England faces funding and staff shortages and an ill-conceived reorganisation. 

The NHS is reeling from an unwanted reorganisation and, far from being ring fenced as claimed by the government, cuts of £20 billion in so-called 'efficiency savings'. The government has delivered a mortal blow to the NHS and introduced privatisation which will  starve in-house services of much needed funding. 

Responding to NHS England’s 'call to action', Chair of BMA Council, Dr Mark Porter, said:

"It will come as no surprise to anyone to hear that the financial crisis in the NHS is deepening, particularly to NHS staff seeing the impact of these pressures first-hand. The BMA’s own analysis shows that the service will have to make do with three quarters of its existing budget.

"The Government has spent two years forcing through an unwanted reorganisation instead of giving the service space to address the funding crisis. New organisations are struggling to establish themselves while in deficit from the start.1

“So far most of the savings found have come from staff pay or cuts in tariffs for services, which is neither sustainable nor likely to deliver the savings needed to protect patient care.

"Doctors care deeply about patient care and more want to be empowered in order to make the necessary changes but are being held back by increased red tape and lack of support from the top. In the face of rising patient demand, an ageing population and the cost of keeping pace with new technologies and treatments, it is no surprise they feel demoralised and frustrated. A trend that will only worsen if they continue to be made the scapegoat for the problems facing the NHS and when the pressures on them are increasing. Doctors have and always will work on behalf of their patients and yet the Government has so far brushed them aside, instead proclaiming themselves as the only patient champions. I hope that doctors will be given a real voice in helping to meet the challenges we face.”

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