Skip to main content

Coalition government has damaged the NHS

The Tory party when in government always messes up the NHS. That is a given. We recall the crisis at the end of the last Tory government in 1997 with  long waiting lists and waiting times and with patients waiting on trollies in A&E because of a shortage of beds. Now we have the same long waiting lists, waiting times and patients waiting on trollies in corridors because of a shortage of beds. It is like Groundhog Day, a recurring nightmare. Tory governments should come with a health warning.

Now a damning report says that historians 'will not be kind in their assessment of the coalition government’s record on NHS reform'.

A major assessment of the coalition government's record on NHS reform by The King's Fund concludes that the upheaval caused by the Health and Social Care Act has been damaging and distracting.

We recall the promise that the NHS was 'safe' in Tory hands and that there would be 'no top down reorganisation'. The history seeks for itself. Not only has there been reorganisation, it has at best been fragmented and disjointed.

The new report highlights some positive developments as a result of the Act including closer involvement of GPs in commissioning services, giving local authorities responsibility for public health and the establishment of health and wellbeing boards. However, it criticises the decision to implement complex organisational changes at a time when the NHS should have been focused on tackling growing pressures on services and an unprecedented funding squeeze.

The changes have left the NHS organisation fragmented and without clear leadership.  Dispersing budgets formerly held by Primary Care Trusts between Commissioning Groups, NHS England and local authorities has created a situation where there  are no longer single population-based budgets for health care. At a time when it is more crucial to develop coordinated health and social care this has been counterproductive.

The coalition has left the NHS poorly funded, fragmented and unfit to meet the demands of coordinated health and social care.

 

Read Ray'a Novel: It wasn't always late summer 

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

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown