Skip to main content

Good news for Health Care?


And so we turn full circle. Health care is once again being restored to local regional governance.  The announcement today that the £6bn health and social care budget for Greater Manchester will be taken over by regional councils under devolved NHS powers is in one sense good news.  Local control will allow more joined up health and social care that is responsive to local needs.  But there are concerns and these have been given by he BMA.

The Tories always have a desire to mess about with the organisation of the NHS. They most often do so in the hope that it will save money - that is 'cut' NHS funding.  For this reason I am always wary of moves to reorganise health care provision.  They fiddle with the deck chairs whilst the ship is allowed to sink, and then give as a reason the sinking of the ship.  It runs a bit like this. The ship is sinking so lets reorganise all the deck chairs so that it sinks more slowly.  The ship continues to sink and so the deck chairs are moved once again, trying to shift the ballast.  This is how it is with NHS reform, when the bottom line is really funding.  A well funded NHS is second to none.  But it isn't well funded, or at least not well enough.

Yet again it means a reorganisation of a health service still reeling from the impact of the unnecessary reorganisation imposed by the coalition government.   The Prime Minister, Mr Cameron,  promised no top down reorganisation of he NHS, yet immediately set about imposing confused and ill-judged reforms. He promised the NHS budget would be protected from the austerity cuts, yet £20 bn has been taken out of the NHS budget for England under he guise of 'efficiency savings'.  These efficiency savings have left a strain on overworked front-line staff.

Responding to the announcement that the health and social care budget for Greater Manchester will be taken over by regional councils, Dr Mark Porter, BMA council chair, said:

“There is no doubt that patients would benefit from more joined-up health and social care. However, any plans to do so would have to be underpinned by clear funding to ensure that an already dangerously over-stretched NHS budget isn't used to prop up a woefully underfunded social care budget.

“These wide sweeping changes will affect millions of people. We need to look carefully at exactly how they will affect the commissioning and delivery of services, and what the impact on patient care will be. We must also ensure clinicians have a central role in decisions over health care, something which was undermined by the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

“We need assurances on who is responsible if these changes go wrong. Doctors believe the secretary of state for health should have the duty to provide a universal and comprehensive health service, and must take responsibility for guaranteeing national standards in the of quality care across the country, especially if the delivery of care is to be devolved to local authorities.

“The NHS has just undergone unprecedented upheaval, there must be no more games with our health service and we need to avoid a situation where the NHS moves from being a national to a local political football.”

The reform is good in principle, but it must be put into effect with care. It must be made clear who is responsible for ensuring a universal and comprehensive health service across the country and how best this can be achieved.

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