NHS news review

Spread the love

Unison votes to strike over pensions on 30 November. Many other unions are also set to ballot for strike action on 30 November. The government commented on the limited turnout suggesting that there was very limited support for striking. That’s the rules though government – same as electing scum politicians.

GPs are very concerned about the demands being made of them as members of commissioning consortia.

Cornish paramedics are being asked to take a pay cut.

NHS Croydon £25M in debt: services cut

The best course of action would be to abandon the Health and Social Care / Destroy the NHS Bill as suggested by the BMA

Conservative election poster 2010

A few recent news articles about the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat (Conservative) coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.

Unison members vote to strike – Home News – UK – The Independent

The Government was tonight facing the biggest outbreak of industrial unrest since the 1979 Winter of Discontent after members of the largest public sector union voted in favour of strikes in the bitter row over pensions.

Unison said its members, ranging from school dinner ladies and refuse collectors to social workers and NHS staff, backed a campaign of industrial action by 245,358 votes to 70,253, in a 29% turnout.

The union is now set to strike on November 30, when teachers, civil servants and other public sector workers will also be staging a walkout in protest at the Government’s plans to increase pension contributions.

Over 220,000 teachers belonging to the NASUWT will start voting tomorrow on industrial action, while other unions will announce the result of their ballots in the coming weeks.

Eight in 10 GPs prefer not to be given reins / Britain / Home – Morning Star

Over 80 per cent of GPs feel they lack the skills to handle the commissioning roles foisted on them by the government’s high-handed NHS Bill, a new study has revealed.

Doctors themselves felt that plans to shut down primary care trusts (PCTs) and create clinical commissioning groups made up of GP practices would be unworkable without a huge investment in commercial skills training.

In a survey commissioned by law firm DMH Stallard LLP and consultancy group Kurt Salmon 85 per cent of 400 GPs interviewed felt they did not have the necessary skills to handle their commissioning roles and almost 90 per cent have real concerns about their legal responsibilities as members of a consortia.

“It is quite clear that GPs, who will be expected to manage and deliver these fundamental reforms, currently have real worries as to how they will make them work in practice,” says Andrew Lentin, a partner at Kurt Salmon.

“Almost a third of GPs think that something as basic as the government’s target date of April 2013 when the commissioning groups will inherit control from their PCT is unachievable.”

Pirate FM – News – Cornish Ambulance Staff Face Pay Cut

Cornish paramedics are being asked to take a pay cut.

South Western Ambulance says it needs to save four million pounds a year.

Holiday leave, overtime and sickness benefits could change too.

Paramedic Alan Lofthouse speaks for Unison.

He blames government cuts:

“It is incredibly demanding, both physically and mentally. But, ambulance staff do do it to the best of their abilities, saving lives, every day. The government needs to really consider how it’s funding the NHS to make sure that there aren’t these shortfalls which mean that employers have to come to staff and ask them to make up that shortfall in their pay”

“Coming to people who’ve had to put up with a two year pay freeze and are looking at a potential pension contribution increase coming up, it’s not really fair to come to them and ask them to pay more for what is essentially the bankers mistakes with government funding”

A consultation is underway. A Trust spokesperson said:

“Like all public sector organisations, South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (SWASFT) service has savings to make. For the financial year 2011/12 efficiency saving are necessary to address amongst other things, inflationary pressures and escalating fuel costs.

NHS Croydon admit they could be faced with up to £25m deficit (From Your Local Guardian)

Millions of pounds are missing from an NHS trust budget, which could have far reaching consequences for patients, health experts warned.

An independent review has been commissioned into the 2010-11 accounts for NHS Croydon after a massive deficit of up to £25m was discovered by its financial team.

The discovery of the shortfall comes only four months after an independent audit of the accounts.

Geoff Martin of London Health Emergency, an independent watchdog, said: “In the run up to the busy winter months NHS Croydon patients will die unnecessarily as a result of this.

“I think the people responsible who created this crisis and have presided over it should be forced to resign.”

He said he believed the level of debt could be as high as £38m, and this had resulted in a freeze on spending for the rest of the financial year.

He said: “In some respects the level of deficit isn’t important. The main thing is in the run up to winter they are going to make huge cuts, which is going to drastically affect the level of care.

27/11/13 Having received a takedown notice from the Independent newspaper for a different posting, I have reviewed this article which links to an article at the Independent’s website in order to attempt to ensure conformance with copyright laws.

I consider this posting to comply with copyright laws since
a. Only a small portion of the original article has been quoted satisfying the fair use criteria, and / or
b. This posting satisfies the requirements of a derivative work.

Please be assured that this blog is a non-commercial blog (weblog) which does not feature advertising and has not ever produced any income.

dizzy

Continue ReadingNHS news review

NHS news review

Spread the love

The main NHS news is that a vote by the House of Lords on political accountability has been postponed for months. There were two amendments: one by Lib-Dem Shirley Williams seeking to maintain that the Home Secretary is responsible for providing a health service and one by Tory Lord Mackay seeking to have the government responsible in exceptional circumstances. Williams and Mackay withdrew their amendments which are expected to be reconsidered at report stage in three or four months time.

This isssue of responsibility seems to be fundamental to the very notion of a National Health Service – that it is the government that is responsible for providing the health service. It appears that the Williams amendment may have passed were it not withdrawn. The Lib-Dem coalition government can’t be trusted on the NHS – we need to watch for gerrymandering, more lies and misdirection, etc…

The King’s Fund thinktank reports that Monitor – the new health service regulator – could fail unless the NHS bill passing through the upper house is amended.

Conservative election poster 2010

A few recent news articles about the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat (Conservative) coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.

NHS bill clause put on hold to stave off revolt by Liberal Democrat peers | Politics | The Guardian

Vote over key issue of political control over NHS will not be resolved until January at earliest to avoid a Lords rebellion

The government has “paused” a key part of its NHS bill to stave off an embarrassing rebellion from key Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords – a move that ensures peers will now debate the controversial legislation until Christmas.

At the heart of the debate is the government’s plan to hand over its “constitutional responsibility” to provide NHS services to a quango. But a number of Lib Dem peers, led by Lady Williams, had insisted the health secretary should be responsible for the provision of health services.

The powerful Lords constitutional committee, on which sits some of the political world’s most prominent legal minds, warned last month about the “extent to which the chain of constitutional responsibility as regard to the NHS [will be] severed”. However both Williams and former Tory lord chancellor James Mackay, who had tabled a fresh amendment seeking to accommodate Lib Dem and Tory visions, agreed to drop their proposals once the government announced it would have a further “period of reflection”.

Earl Howe, the health minister, told the peers to “use the time between now and report stage to reflect further on this matter in the spirit of co-operation”. This means the issue about political control of the NHS will not be resolved by a vote until January at the earliest. It could also see the constitution committee and other lawyers re-examine the issue again, ahead of the bill’s scrutiny at report stage next month.

Such a timetable means that the bill will last in the upper house for much longer than expected as the government is unable to “guillotine” the bill through – causing concerns that it may not be ready by April, at the end of the parliamentary session. Last night sources close to Lansley admitted it “would be a close run thing” but expected the NHS bill to be law in March.

Labour, who had managed to get more than 150 peers out on to the red leather benches, claimed it was “a mess of Andrew Lansley’s own making”. The shadow health spokesman, Andy Burnham, said: “Last week the government indicated they were ready to make concessions and accept the amendment. Today they have been forced to withdraw it for fear of losing the vote. After 10 months of debate on the health bill, it is an indictment that the government does not know what it thinks on a question as basic as the responsibilities of the secretary of state. It is yet more evidence that this Tory-led government has failed to establish a consensus on this bill. They should drop the bill and focus on the financial challenges facing our NHS.”

It is unlikely that the Lib Dem rebels will back down. Williams’s amendment had insisted the “duty to provide” NHS services rests with the health secretary. She told the house that “I in no way resile from the amendment … because we do believe it’s important to have an absolutely solid basis on which the whole of the house will understand about exactly what are the accountabilities and responsibilities of the secretary of state.”

Health policy, leadership, events, information – The King’s Fund

Monitor’s new role may be too wide and complex and could lack independence from ministerial interference, warns a King’s Fund thinktank report

The government’s new health service regulator “may fail” unless the controversial NHS bill passing through the upper house is amended, the King’s Fund has warned.

In a report examining Andrew Lansley’s proposals for Monitor, the NHS regulator, the health thinktank says the health bill expands the regulator’s role from overseeing NHS foundation trusts with a set of “wide-ranging new powers” that will allow economic supervision of the entire health sector.

Under the health secretary’s plans, Monitor will become responsible for setting prices for NHS-funded services, ensuring competition works in the health service and maintaining essential services if hospitals go bust. The new body will have 500 staff and a budget of £82m a year.

But with increased size comes increasing complexity and potential confusion, says the King’s Fund. It warns that “the large number of objectives Monitor has been set may cause confusion and risks diluting the focus of its work”.

The report also warns of a possible clash between other bodies that will seek to exercise control over doctors and hospitals: “A lack of clarity about how it will work alongside other key health bodies, including the NHS Commissioning Board and Care Quality Commission, risks creating tension and unresolved disputes.”

Continue ReadingNHS news review

NHS news review

Spread the love

The House of Lords is debating the Health and Social Care / Destroy the NHS Bill. Rebel Liberal-Democrat peer Shirley Williams has proposed an amendment that maintains the “duty to provide” NHS services. Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Burnham has asked for Liberal-Democrat support for the Williams amendment.

An analysis by the Unite Union reveals that many peers supporting the destruction of the NHS have private healthcare interests which will benefit.

Andrew ‘McDonald’ Lansley’s voluntary deal with alcohol producers and junk food companies is criticised by the Health Select Committee.

Scotland keeps its NHS public

North of England loses NHS funding

Conservative election poster 2010

A few recent news articles about the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat (Conservative) coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.

House of Lords will be able to vote on key NHS clause | Society | The Guardian

Peers will be able to vote on the government’s controversial plan to hand over its “constitutional responsibility” to provide NHS services to an unelected quango on Wednesday.

The government is attempting to convince Liberal Democrats to back a measure proposed by a former Tory lord chancellor, Lord Mackay, which would allow the health secretary to take control of the health service only in the event of “emergency, failure or breach”. But an amendment by Lib Dem rebel Lady Williams, which revives the original “duty to provide” NHS services, is likely to find significant support in the upper house.

In a letter to Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, Labour’s health secretary Andrew Burnham asks for support to “stand firm with us” behind the Williams amendment, which has been backed by Labour’s health spokesperson in the upper house, Baroness Thornton.

With peers beginning line-by-line scrutiny of the coalition’s NHS bill on Wednesday, the government has been attempting to rebut detractors of all political persuasions influenced by the powerful Lords constitutional committee. The committee warned last month about the “extent to which the chain of constitutional responsibility as regard to the NHS [will be] severed”.

‘Peers with private healthcare links vote for NHS privatisation’ says Unite

The second reading of the bill saw a record turnout for the modern House of Lords, with the largest numbers of peers voting since the 1993 Maastricht Treaty debate.

But an examination of the division lists shows that many of those who turned up to vote through the bill worked for companies that stand to directly benefit financially from the bill or work as lobbyists, and do not routinely attend House of Lords votes.

The so-called ‘backwoodsmen’ – Tory peers, often hereditary, who do not normally attend parliament but can be turned out occasionally to pass controversial legislation, such as the poll tax – were historically criticised as one of the most unacceptable features of the unelected upper chamber.

The passage of the bill suggests that the government is now resorting to Thatcher’s old tactics again – but with big business interests also playing a role.

Criticism will be fuelled by the revelation that the peers identified did not stay to vote on the Localism bill, which was debated immediately after the health bill and voted on before 6.00pm on the same day.

The following Lords were highlighted by the investigation:

* Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone, the former Tory health secretary and now a director of BUPA, has an attendance rate of just 20 per cent since 2005 and has voted on less than half the Lords’ voting days this year. She has, however, turned up for every day of the health bill.
* Baroness Cumberlege of Newick is another former Tory health minister who runs her own lobbying firm, Cumberlege Connections, which works ‘extensively’ with major pharmaceuticals interests. She has recorded votes on just 22 days this year, but has voted in every division on the Health and Social Care bill.
* Notorious tax avoider and billionaire Tory bankroller Lord Ashcroft ‘of Belize’ has had investments in, at least, two private healthcare groups. His business interests have led to an attendance rate of just 16 per cent and he voted on less than a quarter of voting days this year, but did make a rare appearance to help ram through the privatisation of the NHS.
* Tim Bell, the founder of Saatchi & Saatchi and Tory advertising guru and now Lord Bell, is another businessman whose appearances in the Lords are rare. He has attended only a fifth of voting days this year. But as chairman of Chime Communications, which owns lobbying firms such as Bell Pottinger, he represents health companies including BT Health, pharma giant AstraZeneca, and the now-infamous Southern Cross, and he voted to pass the Tories’ health bill.
* Lord Chadlington is another Tory peer who appears to make his money in the lobbying industry, and his work as chief executive of the Huntworth communications group has kept him away from most votes in the Lords this year, but again he voted for the health bill.
* Lord Coe is a Tory grandee with one of the worst attendance records in parliament, at less than 10 per cent, and his name appears on the division list on only five days this year, but the government relied on him to get the bill through its second reading. He is a director of AMT-Sybex Group, which is the IT supplier to the NHS, and IT is one of many areas that the bill could lead to lucrative new opportunities for health contractors.

MPs deride Lansley’s ‘nudging’ deal with food and drink firms | Politics | The Guardian

Coalition deal with food and drink firms will not improve public health, the Commons health select committee has warned

The deal done by the coalition with food and drink firms in an attempt to improve public health will not solve what are huge problems of obesity and chronic drinking, MPs warn in a report on Wednesday.

The Commons health select committee also says the government’s other reforms risk widening health inequalities, and that frontline public health services are being cut because of the NHS squeeze, despite ministerial assurances to the contrary.

The cross-party group of MPs have serious doubts about the effectiveness of health secretary Andrew Lansley’s Public Health Responsibility Deal, whereby fast food firms, drinks makers and supermarket chains help shape the coalition’s approach to public health, and thus avoid being subjected to further legislation, in return for what critics say are inadequate changes, such as cutting salt in food.

The report echoes concerns expressed by the British Medical Association, campaigners, and celebrity chef Jamie Oliver at ministers’ reliance on voluntary agreements with big business. The government must be ready to use legislation if efforts to “nudge” people fail, the MPs say.

While not opposed to “nudging” per se, they are “unconvinced the deal will be effective in obesity and alcohol abuse, and expect the Department of Health to set out how progress will be monitored and regulation applied if necessary”. The committee, led by former Conservative health secretary Stephen Dorrell, believes “partnership with commercial organisations has a place” but adds: “Those with a financial interest must not be allowed to set the agenda.”

Related:

McDonald’s and PepsiCo to help write UK health policy | Politics | The Guardian

Leading doctors call for urgent crackdown on junk food | Politics | The Observer

Scotland keeps its NHS public | Healthcare Network | Guardian Professional

The Scottish Nationalist administration has deliberately minimised the role of the private sector in the NHS

During this year’s Scottish Parliament election campaign Alex Salmond, the SNP leader and first minister of Scotland, made a memorable appearance on the BBC’s Question Time staged in Liverpool. He boasted that his government had “eradicated the private sector” from the NHS in Scotland. Furthermore, Salmond implored the predominantly English audience not to allow the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour to “destroy” their English NHS.

The audience gave Salmond’s words a warm reception. “We knew health would come up,” explained one of the first minister’s aides, “and the point we wanted to make was not that we do things so much better in Scotland, but to make the contrast.” The aide added: “That was the key moment – he [Salmond] spoke to them as if they were Scottish voters.”

Indeed, for a party whose ultimate aim remains ‘independence’ for Scotland, repeatedly highlighting the differences between public service delivery north and south of the border is simply good politics. At the recent SNP conference in Inverness Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish health secretary, echoed her boss’s theme, telling delegates it now seemed “inevitable that the Tories, aided and abetted by their Liberal [Democrat] partners, will break up the NHS in England.”

Complaint lodged in Gloucestershire NHS row | This is Gloucestershire

NHS Gloucestershire boss Jan Stubbings makes an official complaint about being questioned by a councillor.

TOUGH questioning on controversial NHS changes could land popular county councillor Brian Oosthuysen in hot water.

The Labour member for Rodborough’s exchanges with NHS Gloucestershire boss Jan Stubbings offended her so much that she has lodged an official complaint.

He had pressed her on several aspects of the handover of staff and services from NHS Gloucestershire to a community interest company.

That plan is on hold after a legal challenge from pensioner Michael Lloyd, backed by Stroud Against the Cuts.

“As far as I am concerned, I simply was asking questions of the chief executive and she got angry about one or two of the questions I asked,” said Coun Oosthuysen.

NHS funding shake-up could cost region £90m, warn MPs – Main Section – Yorkshire Post

HEALTH inequalities could widen following controversial reforms which it is claimed could see Yorkshire lose nearly £90m in NHS funding, MPs warn today.

A Health Select Committee report criticises a decision by Ministers to cut the weighting in NHS funding for health inequalities which will shift resources from the North to the South.

Public health experts in Manchester suggest Yorkshire could lose £87m once the full effects of the changes work through. Worst hit would be Barnsley, losing £14.7m, and Hull, losing £13.2m.

Only North Yorkshire and the East Riding would gain in the region under the change in the NHS funding formula which would leave Surrey as the biggest winner, picking up £61.4m extra.

The report also claims coalition reforms of public health, which will hand responsibilities to local authorities, pose a “significant risk” of widening health inequalities further.

It raises concerns about plans for a health premium – funding allocated to councils for good results – warning it will “undermine” areas struggling most to tackle problems.

Committee chairman Stephen Dorrell said: “The effect of this policy appears to be to target resources towards those areas which have made greatest progress with their public health challenges and away from areas which face the greatest outstanding problems.”

Continue ReadingNHS news review