Skip to main content

Devestating NHS cuts 'shrouded in secrecy'

Doctors warn new plans for severe NHS cuts are 'shrouded in secrecy' and will ‘cause uproar’

Health service leaders have refused to publish details of plans for severe cuts that could extend waiting times, reduce access to services, cut down on prescriptions and treatments, and even merge or close hospitals and facilities.

The Capped Expenditure Process (CEP) was introduced in April 2017 and instructs NHS commissioners and providers in 13 areas across England with the largest budget deficits to make considerable cuts in order to achieve financial balance by next April1.

The areas affected by the CEP are under intense pressure to drastically reduce spending by around £500m, and health leaders have been told to ‘think the unthinkable’ with regards to cuts.

The 13 areas involved have submitted plans and NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens has now told commissioners and managers to get on with delivering the proposals – warning that more ‘difficult choices’ are on the way.

The BMA sent Freedom of Information requests to NHS Improvement and each of the 13 areas, requesting the proposal documents. NHS Improvement said the documents belong to local health authorities and suggested requests were forwarded to those organisations.

The BMA then wrote to organisations in each of the areas requesting the final return – or the details within if not the whole documents. Representatives from just eight of the 13 areas responded and none provided the full document or any significant details of their plan.

The BMA says it is deeply concerned by the CEP, the secretive manner in which plans have been drawn up, and the risk that proposed cuts to already stretched services will have to patient care and NHS staff. Only limited details about proposals have been made available, typically by individual trusts and CCGs, or through leaks in the media.

Senior NHS leaders involved in drawing up local plans have told the BMA that even the more modest of the proposals ‘would cause uproar’ and that they are frustrated by the ‘ridiculous’ pace and secrecy of the process. One said he felt local leaders were being bullied.

Commenting, BMA council deputy chair, Dr David Wrigley, said today:

“These plans could have serious consequences for doctors working on the frontline and for the care and treatment patients receive and can expect in hospitals and GP surgeries in these areas.

“It is bad enough that brutal cuts could threaten the services but it is totally unacceptable that proposals of this scale, which would affect large numbers of patients, are shrouded in such secrecy.

“Patients, the public and frontline staff – who have worked so hard to keep the health service afloat through years of underfunding in the face of rising demand – must be at the heart of any plans for the future of the health service but we are all frozen out of discussions, and local health managers are being asked to push forward despite being unwilling to share their decisions openly.

“This government must stop and think before pressing ahead, as cuts on this scale in this timeframe would have a devastating impact on patients and staff. Our NHS is one of the very best healthcare services in the world, with hugely talented staff but it relies too much on the goodwill of the staff who dedicate their lives to helping patients. This simply cannot go on. The government must provide adequate funding for the health service before it is too late.”

Speaking anonymously to the BMA, one trust chair with oversight of the process of drawing up the plans in his area, said:

"We were descended on and asked to think the unthinkable in no time at all. The NHS seems to go into a zone of secrecy as an automatic reaction. That’s the thing that really upsets me – the secrecy of it all and the ridiculous pace in which solutions are to be crafted and agreed. It’s the management culture too – it’s all hierarchical power and bullying. Even the most modest proposals would cause uproar.”

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