NHS news review

Spread the love

Conservative election poster 2010

Recent events in the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat (Conservative) coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.

 

Apart from the SNP’s Sturgeon claiming that the only way to protect the Scottish health service is through independence, all the news is about the vote at the Liberal-Democrat Spring conference.

Liberal-Democrats resisted appeals from Nick Clegg and Shirley Williams to support the Destroy the NHS / Health and Social Care Bill.

 

How the Orange Bookers took over the Lib Dems


What Britain now has is a blue-orange coalition, with the little-knownOrange Book forming the core of current Lib Dem political thinking. To understand how this disreputable arrangement has come about, we need to examine the philosophy laid out in The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism, edited by David Laws (now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury) and Paul Marshall. Particularly interesting are the contributions of the Lib Dems’ present leadership.

Published in 2004, the Orange Book marked the start of the slow decline of progressive values in the Lib Dems and the gradual abandonment of social market values. It also provided the ideological standpoint around which the party’s right wing was able to coalesce and begin their march to power in the Lib Dems. What is remarkable is the failure of former SDP and Labour elements to sound warning bells about the direction the party was taking. Former Labour ministers such as Shirley Williams and Tom McNally should be ashamed of their inaction.

Clegg and his Lib Dem supporters have much in common with David Cameron and his allies in their philosophical approach and with their social liberal solutions to society’s perceived ills. The Orange Book is predicated on an abiding belief in the free market’s ability to address issues such as public healthcare, pensions, environment, globalisation, social and agricultural policy, local government and prisons.

The Lib Dem leadership seems to sit very easily in the Tory-led coalition. This is an arranged marriage between partners of a similar background and belief. Even the Tory-Whig coalition of early 1780s, although its members were from the same class, at least had fundamental political differences. Now we see a Government made up of a single elite that has previously manifested itself as two separate political parties and which is divided more by subtle shades of opinion than any profound ideological difference.

Continue ReadingNHS news review

NHS news review

Spread the love

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.

Legal experts warn of NHS charges and rationing

The Health and Social Care Bill creates a legal basis for withholding or charging for health services, according to medico-legal experts.

In an article in the British Medical Journal, it is argued that the Bill will drive a transition to a US-style model where private health insurance is the norm for medical reimbursement.

The authors argue that by removing the legal obligation to provide free healthcare and creating a legal right to charge for it, the Bill amounts to “the legal destruction of the founding principles of the NHS”.

Allyson M. Pollock, David Price and Peter Roderick list the following legal consequences of the new legislation:

• The duty of the Health Secretary to secure free healthcare for the population of England and the duty of PCTs to secure health services for everyone living in a defined geographical area are both abolished.

• The new CCGs will determine the scope of services independently of the Health Secretary, and may delegate these decisions to commercial companies.

• Some health services will be arranged by local authorities, who will have new charging powers.

• The Health Secretary will have an extraordinary power to exclude people from the NHS.

Taken in combination, the authors argue, this is a sufficient legal framework for a transition from a free NHS to one that charges many people for many of the services they receive.

The recent amendment stating that the Health Secretary “retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of the health service in England” does not restore any duty to ensure the provision of comprehensive services, the authors say.

They also note that unlike PCTs, CCGs will not have a duty to provide health services for everyone within a defined geographical area. They will also have fewer obligations in terms of what government-funded services they provide, being required only to provide ambulance services and ‘emergency care’.

CCGs will now have the power to determine whether provision of the following to individuals is “appropriate”: disease prevention, care of pregnant women and new mothers, care of young children, care of people who are ill, aftercare of those who have received treatment.

These decisions need not be made by NHS clinicians and can be delegated to the private sector. In addition, private providers of healthcare will draw up their own criteria for patient selection, and will not need to notify local authorities of any risk to patients through termination of a service.

An open-ended relationship is created between CCGs and local authorities, which can pass service responsibilities back and forth between them, thus deregulating the provision of integrated care. Charging powers are created for the protection and improvement of public health, including vaccination and screening services as well as preventative healthcare and health information.

Many areas of healthcare will cease to be mandated and therefore may no longer be provided free of charge.

The authors conclude: “Legal analysis shows that the Bill would allow reductions in government funded health services as a consequence of decisions made independently of the Secretary of State by a range of bodies.

“The Bill signals the basis for a shift from a mainly tax financed health service to one in which patients may have to pay for services currently free at point of delivery.”

GPs Call For Health Bill Withdrawal

In the week that David Cameron said he “does not care” how unpopular his NHS reforms have become, the Royal College of GPs has reiterated its staunch opposition to the Health and Social Care Bill.

Dr Clare Gerada, Chair of the RCGP, today clarified the view of the college after critics claimed she had “weakened” her position against the Health Bill. These accusations followed a letter to the prime minister from Dr Gerada, asking him to work with GPs to find “a stable way forward” in light of the NHS reforms.

You can read the letter to the PM here.

The 34,000 GPs currently working in the UK will face huge challenges if the proposed reforms become reality. It will be their responsibility to enact the changes mapped out in the Health Bill, which places £60 billion of public money in the hands of doctors with little experience of financial management. It also forces GPs to directly ration treatment, a move that undermines a key principle of healthcare: that doctors have their patients’ best interests at heart.

The RCGP remains opposed to the Health Bill, but recognises that the NHS must prepare for these changes to maintain the best possible care. Dr Gerada is calling for co-operation for the good of her patients, rather than for political point-scoring. This is in sharp contrast to the Prime Minister, who snubbed the RCGP and the British Medical Association during a recent Downing Street meeting on NHS reform.

Dr Gerada has issued a further statement, this time addressed to Nick Clegg, reaffirming the RCGP’s concerns. She asked the deputy prime minister to use his influence to withdraw the Health and Social Care Bill, and outlined her firm belief that “the reform the NHS needs could happen without this complex and confusing wholesale restructure.”

Cameron cannot hide the risks of his NHS reforms

The PM should now respect the law, accept the court verdict and order the immediate release of the NHS transition risk register

[John Healey is former Shadow Health Secretary]

The government has dragged out its refusal to release this information for 15 months, while parliament has been legislating for the NHS changes and pressed ahead with implementation at the same time. It’s now near the end of the 11th hour for the NHS bill, with the legislation set to pass in the next fortnight. Next Tuesday is the final day for amending the health bill in the House of Lords. They are set to pass the bill on Monday 19 March, with the Commons expected to do the same the following day before the bill is sent to the Queen for royal assent.

 

This legal judgment must put an end to the government’s efforts to keep secret the risks to the NHS and the action it is taking to manage or minimise them. Parliament rightly expects this information before it takes the final irrevocable steps to pass the health bill. Ministers’ first reaction to the tribunal’s judgment is to stonewall, delaying any decision to accept or appeal against the verdict until after the end of the bill. This is wrong. The government has now lost twice in law. This is a legal and constitutional argument, not a political argument. It isn’t a matter of whether you are for or against the reforms. It’s about people’s right to know the government’s own assessment of the nature and scale of the risks it is running with the quality, safety and efficiency of our NHS.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg have both made a strong commitment to open government. They should now respect the law, accept this court verdict and order the immediate release of the NHS transition risk register.

 

Liberal Democrat MPs ‘insult’ man with HIV who raised concerns over the ‘privatisation’ health bill

More than half of swing voters don’t trust Nick Clegg on NHS, finds poll

How the Orange Bookers took over the Lib Dems


What Britain now has is a blue-orange coalition, with the little-knownOrange Book forming the core of current Lib Dem political thinking. To understand how this disreputable arrangement has come about, we need to examine the philosophy laid out in The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism, edited by David Laws (now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury) and Paul Marshall. Particularly interesting are the contributions of the Lib Dems’ present leadership.

Published in 2004, the Orange Book marked the start of the slow decline of progressive values in the Lib Dems and the gradual abandonment of social market values. It also provided the ideological standpoint around which the party’s right wing was able to coalesce and begin their march to power in the Lib Dems. What is remarkable is the failure of former SDP and Labour elements to sound warning bells about the direction the party was taking. Former Labour ministers such as Shirley Williams and Tom McNally should be ashamed of their inaction.

Clegg and his Lib Dem supporters have much in common with David Cameron and his allies in their philosophical approach and with their social liberal solutions to society’s perceived ills. The Orange Book is predicated on an abiding belief in the free market’s ability to address issues such as public healthcare, pensions, environment, globalisation, social and agricultural policy, local government and prisons.

The Lib Dem leadership seems to sit very easily in the Tory-led coalition. This is an arranged marriage between partners of a similar background and belief. Even the Tory-Whig coalition of early 1780s, although its members were from the same class, at least had fundamental political differences. Now we see a Government made up of a single elite that has previously manifested itself as two separate political parties and which is divided more by subtle shades of opinion than any profound ideological difference.

 

Continue ReadingNHS news review

NHS news review

Spread the love

Conservative election poster 2010

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

Save our NHS rally: thousands march in health bill protest

Thousands of nurses, midwives, doctors, physiotherapists, and other NHS workers are thought to have attended the rally

The defiant tone was set at the start of Save our NHS rally at Westminster’s central hall when the crowd gave a noisy standing ovation to June Hautot, the veteran NHS campaigner who made headlines last month when she cornered Andrew Lansley as he tried to get into Downing Street for the prime minister’s NHS summit, from which most key medical organisations were excluded.

It was just one of many low points the health secretary has experienced during the health and social care bill’s tortuous and highly charged 14-month progress.

Thousands of nurses, midwives, doctors, physiotherapists, cleaners, porters and other NHS workers were thought to have attended the rally, with marches from the headquarters of the British Medical Association near Euston and St Thomas’s hospital in south London converging on Westminster.

 

 

Continue ReadingNHS news review

NHS news review

Spread the love

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.

 

Apologies that the NHS news review is so late today – I’ve had network problems all day.

 

There’s a rally opposing the Health and Social Care / Destroy the NHS bill today at 6pm. There are many statements from union leaders. The BMA’s Consultants Committee intend to vote on a motion of no confidence in Andrew Lansley.

Awaiting a decision in the risk register hearing.The arguments proposed.

BMA: patient care compromised as consultants forced to fight ‘belligerent’ Government

 

Dr Porter, a consultant obstetric anaesthetist at the University Hospital, Coventry, said: “The tragedy is that doctors’ time and effort is being increasingly diverted away from seeking to improve patient care.”

Lauching a broadside at ministers’ plans to reform the NHS and overhaul doctors’ pensions, he said: “The Government has opened battle with doctors.”

He continued: “Consultants have been pushed into conflict by a belligerent and obstinate government, when we would far rather be planning improvements in clinical services.”

The Health and Social Care Bill was opposed, he claimed, by “almost every part of society”, while the Government had done “nothing to address” widely-held concerns.

He described proposed changes to doctors’ pensions, that are likely to result in industrial action, as a “betrayal” of the “social compact” between medics and their employers.

While Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, has repeatedly accused doctors and nurses of opposing the Bill because the Government wanted them to pay more for their pensions, Dr Porter said these were “quite separate” issues that had been “wrongly linked”.

“On both these matters we stand ready to discuss them with the Government but we find that the door to talks has been slammed in our face,” he said.

Simon Burns, the Health Minister, accused the BMA of “scaremongering from the sidelines” while doctors got on with the job at hand.

 

Letwin on NHS: It is privatisation


David Cameron and Andrew Lansley are desperate to avoid the suggestion that they are privatising the NHS.

But it seems that cabinet minister Oliver Letwin didn’t get the memo.

He said last week that putting private companies in charge of schools and hospitals would soon “become not a matter of political debate but straightforward and obvious as a way of conducting business in this country”.

Letwin has boasted about the Tory threat to the NHS before. He reportedly said in 2004 that the NHS “will not exist” within five years of a Tory government.

 

 

Continue ReadingNHS news review

NHS news review

Spread the love

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.

In today’s NHS news review:

  • The Information Rights Tribunal to decide whether the risk register needs to be published as directed by the Information Commissioner continues.
  • Crap IT firm CSC gets another £1billion of NHS business
  • Labour MP Jonathan Reynolds on the NHS

 NHS reforms risk assessments ‘open to speculation’ if published

Department of Health permanent secretary Una O’Brien says contents of documents ‘might be interpreted and misrepresented’

The publication of documents outlining the risks relating to the government’s health changes could lead to a “distorted and wildly speculative interpretation of risk”, according to the permanent secretary of the Department of Health.

Una O’Brien also warned that publishing the documents would have a “chilling effect” on the way civil servants tasked with outlining the potential pitfalls of a policy commit their views to paper, as the government fights to keep secret the contents of its risk assessments of the government’s shakeup of the NHS.

O’Brien was giving evidence to the information rights tribunal as the government seeks to overturn a November ruling by the information commissioner, Christopher Graham, who ordered the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, to release his department’s risk assessment of the potential dangers of his radical shakeup.

It follows two separate freedom of information (FoI) requests lodged more than a year ago for the strategic risk register (February 2011) and the transition programme risk register (November 2010) to be made public.

Graham said in his ruling that disclosure of the two documents would significantly aid public understanding of risks related to the proposed changes and it would also inform participation in the debate about the reorganisation.

John Healey: Hidden risks that lie at the heart of huge NHS reforms

TODAY, I’ll be giving evidence in court in London and calling on the Government to release their risk assessment of the huge changes they want to make to our NHS.

It was back in 2010 as Labour’s shadow health secretary that I first asked the Department of Health to release this information, the “transition risk register” relating to the controversial Health and Social Care Bill.

A risk register contains an objective list of the risks associated with the implementation of a programme or policy, confirming and giving reassurance that the Department has considered fully what might go wrong and taken steps to ensure the risks are minimised or managed.

Risk has been at the heart of concern about the NHS reforms from the outset. Lack of evidence and confidence about how well the Government was prepared to deal with the risks was a major cause of growing professional, public and Parliamentary alarm at the plans throughout last year.

When the Government refused my FoI request, I referred it to the Information Commissioner. A year later, the Information Commissioner came to the legal judgment that the risk register – which he has had the benefit of seeing – must be released.

He said there was “very strong public interest in disclosure of the information, given the significant change to the structure of the health service the government’s policies on the modernisation will bring”. And he said it would “aid public understanding and debate”.

But the Health Secretary still refuses. It begs the question, just what is Andrew Lansley trying to hide?

David Cameron promised “no top-down reorganisation of the NHS” before the election; now he is forcing through the biggest reorganisation in NHS history – at the same time the health service is facing the biggest financial squeeze since the 1950s.

But this isn’t a matter of whether you are for or against the reforms.

It’s about people’s right to know the Government’s own assessment of the nature and scale of the risks they are running with the quality, safety and efficiency of our NHS. They want to know the Government are doing everything they can to reduce risks to patients and services.

But the Government haven’t reassured us of that yet – that’s one of the reasons why concern and criticism is still growing from the public, patients, health professionals and Parliament.

Ministers are dismissive. They’re out of touch. They simply can’t see what the NHS means to people, how much it matters.

We all need the NHS. We trust it when we are most fearful. We utterly depend on it when we are most vulnerable.

IT firm behind ‘unworkable’ NHS database keeps IT deal

Ministers have agreed to give the American company responsible for the “unworkable” NHS database almost £1 billion in health contracts

 Computer Sciences Corporation, an American IT firm, previously had a £1.9 billion contract for the national NHS system which was scrapped by Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, last year.

The firm is understood to have threatened legal action against the Government and is now thought to have agreed to continue with up to £900 million of NHS work in return for dropping any legal action.

It will run computer systems for the NHS across the north, midlands and eastern England under the deal which is expected to be agreed in the coming days.

Ministers are expected to herald the “compromise deal” as a success which will save the taxpayer about £1 billion. However, it underlines the difficulties faced by the Coalition in extricating itself from previous contracts agreed by the last Government.

It will also add to growing allegations that despite the high-profile announcement that the beleaguered national NHS database is being scrapped – it is simply being replaced by a series of similar regional systems which will perform the same function.

The NHS database attracted widespread criticism following a series of damning official reports. Last year, the House of Commons Public Accounts committee described the programme as “unworkable”.

Last May, the National Audit Office criticised the project for being poor value for money, patchy and long overdue.

 

NHS, e-petitions and broken promises

[Jonathan Reynolds is MP for Stalybridge and Hyde and is parliamentary private secretary to Ed Miliband]

David Cameron is failing to listen not only to healthcare professionals but to tens of thousands of people who want the health bill dropped, writes one Labour MP

In the run-up to the last general election, David Cameron promised that Parliament would debate and vote on any issue if it had the backing of more than 100,000 people.

But that promise was broken in February – when I was refused parliamentary time to debate the future of the government’s Health and Social Care Bill.

An e-petition – calling on the government to drop the controversial bill – was started by respected health professional Kailash Chand OBE, who lives in the Stalybridge and Hyde constituency.

When I stood before Backbench Business Committee, the e-petition had already been signed by more than 162,000 people.

Yet despite widespread backing – including members of the Labour Party, the Green Party, the SDLP, the DUP and the Liberal Democrats – the application for the debate was refused.

In the 24 hours following the application people continued to sign the petition at a rate of one a minute. Now the total stands at 169,114 – and it is continuing to rise.

David Cameron made his promise to devote parliamentary time to any issue that was backed by 100,000 people because he wanted to show that he would listen; he wanted to show that he was in touch.

But his determination to railroad through the Health and Social Care Bill shows that he will not listen – not to the Royal Colleges, not to the patients, not to the healthcare unions and not to the tens of thousands of people who have signed the petition.

Of course David Cameron made another important promise in the run-up to the general election – he promised that there would be no more top-down reorganisation of the NHS.

Despite his reassuring words, the Health and Social Care Bill marks the biggest reorganisation of the NHS since its launch in 1948.

This bill is a reckless gamble with the NHS that could lead to widespread variation in the treatments that will be available in different parts of the country.

 

 

Continue ReadingNHS news review