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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Therapeutic animal stress

Interacting with animals is known to be therapeutic,  particularly in reducing stress.  But do we consider sufficiently the effects this may have on the animals involved?   We might assume that because it is calming for us, then it must be so for the therapeutic animals, but is this so?  New research suggests that it isn't always without stress for the animals involved.  Positive human-animal interaction relates to changes in physiological variables both in humans and other animals, including a reduction of subjective psychological stress (fear, anxiety) and an increase of oxytocin levels in the brain.  It also reduces the 'stress' hormone, cortisol. Indeed, these biological responses have measurable clinical benefits.  Oxytocin has long been implicated in maternal bonding, sexual behaviour and social affiliation behaviours and in promoting a sense of well-being .  So far, so good.  We humans often turn to animals for stress relief, companionship, and even therapy.  We kno