NHS news review

Spread the love

Monitor to employ 600 at an average salary of over £50,000.

Private health firms are experiencing a boost in business from NHS cuts.

The ConDem coalition government eases information requirments for private healthcare providers.

The ConDem coalition government hides the cost of reforming the NHS until after the third reading of the Destroy the NHS / Health and Social Care Bill. It is disappointing that the government resorts to such subterfuge.

Conservative election poster 2010

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

NHS ‘watchdog’ set to become ‘bureaucratic monster’, says Unite

Monitor – the government’s revamped organisation to regulate competition in the NHS – is set to become ‘a bloated bureaucratic monster’, Unite, the largest union in the country, has warned.

Unite said that Monitor’s running costs were set to soar from £72 million-a-year to £82 million – with a 600-strong staff being paid twice the national average wage of £26,000.

Unite said that ministers were creating a bloated, old fashioned bureaucracy which would be responsible for handing over lucrative NHS contracts to the ‘government’s friends’ in the private healthcare sector.

Monitor was expecting to spend a further £14 million-a-year on consultants and £4 million in legal fees, according to the Department of Health’s own Impact Assessment report.

Monitor is a lynchpin of the government’s Health and Social Care Bill, currently before Parliament, with the remit of promoting choice, competition and collaboration – which Unite says are contradictory and confusing aims.

Unite national officer for health, Rachael Maskell said: ‘It is equally disgraceful that the Impact Assessment team have been unable “to develop a robust monetary estimate of the benefits of changes to the regulatory regime”.

‘All this indicates that a revamped Monitor is not being geared for the benefit of patients, but as a conduit to channel lucrative NHS contracts to private healthcare companies, many of whom have bankrolled the Tory party since David Cameron became leader.’

‘Monitor anticipates employing about 600 staff at an average cost of £84,000 each, which would include salaries, National Insurance contributions, any pension provision and other costs.’

‘This works out at average annual salary levels of more than £50,000 – double that of the average national salary of £26,000. A bloated bureaucratic monster is being created – so much for all the ministerial chatter about efficiency savings. This is being paid for by cuts to frontline services, as well as staff pay and terms and conditions.’

Grasp the nettle now – before it’s too late / Features / Home – Morning Star

As Andrew Lansley’s hugely controversial and largely unaltered Health and Social Care Bill faced its crucial vote in the Commons, unelected Tory Health Minister Lord Howe was smugly assuring a conference of grasping private-sector companies that the Bill offers them “genuine opportunities” to take over large chunks of the NHS.

There would be profitable opportunities galore – both in the provision of certain profitable services and in supplying management expertise to help GPs decide how to spend local budgets.

Howe recognised that “the NHS will not give up their patients easily.”

But of course that’s why the Bill, which sailed through a docile Commons with a majority of 65, will stack the odds against public-sector providers and open up most of the £100 billion NHS budget in England to cherry-picking private companies.

It will scrap any pretence at strategic planning or equitable provision by abolishing primary care trusts and strategic health authorities and strip away the thin veneer of local accountability, putting a new national body, the NHS Commissioning Board, and the regulator Monitor – led by pro-market fundamentalist and former McKinsey consultant David Bennett, who was also at the conference with Howe bigging up the private sector – firmly in charge.

Monitor will draw up the list of “any qualified providers” which GPs will have to offer as “choices” when patients need further treatment.

The Bill, coupled with the massive £20bn cuts programme to be achieved by 2014, will also pull the financial rug from under dozens of major NHS hospitals, forcing them to close services, merge with neighbouring trusts and axe staff to stay afloat.

At the same time it will encourage many foundation trusts to maximise the numbers of wealthy private patients they treat, by removing all limits on the amount of money they can make.

While David Cameron and his arrogant, lying ministers falsely claimed support from “the Royal College of GPs, the Royal College of Physicians, the nurses, people working in the Health Service,” we all know that quite the opposite is the case.

The Bill is even opposed by a large majority of GPs, who are the only people apparently set to benefit from its proposals, making Lansley possibly the first politician in history to seek to force £80bn in commissioning budgets into the hands of people who insist they don’t want it.

The Bill is also rejected by the BMA, which has promised to step up its lobbying against the Bill in the Lords, by Royal Colleges, and by almost every academic and think tank not in the pay of the neoliberal right wing.

Every health union is also against the Bill, but the mass campaign that was needed to stop it has still not taken off – a year after the TUC voted unanimously against the outlines of the Bill, as set out in Lansley’s white paper.

NHS rationing boosts private healthcare firms – report | Business | The Guardian

NHS costs squeeze means longer waiting lists – and growing numbers of patients opting to pay for operations, say private firms

by Denis Campbell

Private healthcare firms are experiencing an increase in business caused by the financial squeeze across the NHS in England, a new report on the sector shows.

Independent providers are benefitting from the growing number of patients who are choosing to pay for their own care after having treatment delayed or denied altogether by an NHS primary care trust (PCT).

In a survey of 101 influential industry figures – including chief executives, investors and advisers – 34% said budgetary pressure in the NHS had led to increased demand for private healthcare.

While the reasons were not given, experts said the NHS’s need to cut costs was prompting patients to fund their own hip or knee replacement, hernia repair or cataract removal. “We are certainly picking up that some patients are being asked to wait longer than they would have expected and are therefore deciding to pay for themselves rather than wait,” said David Worskett, chief executive of the NHS Partners Network, which represents more than 30 firms – both for-profit and not-for-profit – that work with the NHS.

Worskett said “misguided” decisions of many PCTs to force patients to wait many months for treatment, often until the next financial year, lay behind the growing trend. Many PCTs are rationing access to care as the NHS struggles to adjust to a 0.1% annual increase in its budget, after years of big rises, and the need to make £20bn of efficiency savings by 2015.

The trend is a boost for a UK private health market which that was hit hard by the downturn in 2008 and for which recovery since has lagged behind that seen elsewhere in Europe, according to Credit Suisse. It is contained in HealthInvestor magazine’s annual study of the industry’s fortunes in conjunction with law firm Nabarro, called The Healthcare Industry Barometer 2011, which is published today.

The NHS will soon be less accountable: that’s good news for the health reform lobby | openDemocracy

While battle rages over the government’s controversial reforms of the NHS, the Department of Health has sneaked out two toxic changes that could seriously damage your health by promoting ignorance and restricting your rights as a citizen.

The two changes appear to be unconnected but are extremely helpful to new private providers of NHS medical services. One will limit the information that the private firms have to provide under the Freedom of Information Act to patients and relatives, the other will help them by abolishing the collection of health statistics on the services they provide and the quality of staff they employ.

The first has been revealed by the authoritative Campaign for Freedom of Information who are rightly demanding that Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, amends the law so patients can be protected. See their letter .

The second comes from a very convoluted consultation exercise launched the day after the August bank holiday and trumpeted by Anne Milton, the public health minister, as a drive against “red tape”.

This proposes to slash the collection of statistics by the Department of Health by 25 per cent in a rather uneven and unclear way. But it is clear that the aim is to “minimise the burden” on the NHS and in particular the new private providers.

Half the statistics collected on the NHS workforce – which are used to improve staff training and forecast the need for skilled staff – are to be dropped. The consultation document says: “This will be of significance for non-NHS providers of NHS services as it will determine the minimum workforce information they would be required to provide.”

Ministers ”hid impact of NHS reforms” – Public Service

Labour’s shadow health secretary John Healey has attacked the government for slipping out details on the cost of reforming the NHS the day after the House of Commons finished debating the legislation.

The Department of Health published the revised impact assessment on 8 September but, Healey said, this was prepared and signed off on 1 September.

Healey said in the Commons: “Last week MPs were asked to debate, amend and pass the Health and Social Care Bill with no new information of the costs and consequences of the biggest reorganisation in NHS history because the government had promised a new impact assessment following the Future Forum recommendations.

“The day after the debate, the new impact assessment was then smuggled out with no press statement. It shows Monitor, the new economic regulator, plan to employ 600 staff at an average cost of £84,000. And most importantly, it shows a health minister signed off the assessment on 1 September – a full five days before the Bill was debated last week.

“It’s a disgrace these facts were kept hidden from MPs and the public before such a critical and controversial debate.”

UNISON News | The public service union | ‘Save the NHS – kill the bill’

“Save the NHS and kill the bill.” That was the rallying cry from UNISON president Eleanor Smith as the TUC debated the government’s NHS plans and the All Together for the NHS campaign to defeat them.

“Our NHS is number one in equity, number one in quality and number one in safety,” said Ms Smith, who works in the health service as a theatre nurse.

But just a week ago, she recalled: “MPs began a two-day debate to wash their hands of the NHS. And on Wednesday night they voted to pass the Health and Social Care Bill.”

Now, she said, in terms of Parliament “all that stands between the government and our NHS is the House of Lords.”

And make no mistake, she added, “the bill hasn’t changed. Yes, they had what they laughingly called a listening exercise. Yes, there have been tweaks. But all the essentials are still there.”

The bill still removes the health secretary’s responsibility to deliver a health service in England, “any qualified provider” remains, allowing private companies to provide services instead of the NHS and the cap on NHS hospitals treating private patients has been lifted.

And in an age of austerity and cuts, warned Ms Smith, “hospitals will be forced to do all they can to raise cash from whatever source”.

‘There is still time to protect the NHS,’ TUC Congress told | The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy

The government’s proposed health service changes have nothing to do with improving the NHS, promoting better integration, or keeping the NHS safe for future generations, the CSP told the TUC Congress today.

CSP industrial relations committee chair Alex MacKenzie said the Any Qualified Provider policy and the Health and Social Care Bill would put the free market above all other considerations, leading to fragmented services, a postcode lottery for care, rationing and the undermining of professional collaboration.

Seconding composite motion 10 at Congress, which ‘deplored’ the government’s health reforms because they would ‘break up the NHS and put profits ahead of patients’, Ms MacKenzie said ‘overseas healthcare companies are rubbing their hands. The Coalition is waving to them – ‘come over here, Britain’s open for business, the rest of the country might be struggling, but there’s money to be made on the NHS’.

Pointing out that the NHS was ranked number one in the world for quality, equity and safety despite costing less per head than many other major developing countries, Ms MacKenzie said there was no case for radical upheaval. The CSP and other health unions would continue to oppose the reforms, she said.

‘It isn’t all over yet.’

‘The Bill has still to go through the House of Lords and then back to the Commons.

‘There is still time to protect the NHS.’

The vote was carried.

 

Continue ReadingNHS news review

NHS news review

Spread the love

CONservative Prime Minister David Cameron claimed, last Thursday, in a factually incorrect, untrue and misleading way that “the whole health profession is on board for what is now being done”.

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/story-13207410-detail/story.html
The Prime Minister yesterday issued a passionate broadside in response to St Ives Liberal Democrat MP and Health Select Committee member Andrew George, who this week called on opponents to dig their heels in and derail service changes over concerns the NHS would become a profit-making machine at the expense of patient care.

And this is what St Ives Liberal Democrat MP and Health Select Committee member Andrew George has to say

BBC News – St Ives MP Andrew George rejects government health bill

St Ives Liberal Democrat MP Andrew George said he was concerned about the “potential risks” surrounding government policy on the NHS.

Mr George said he feared the health service would be “driven more by profit than by concern about patient care”.

Mr George said he would refuse to support the bill.

“This is a view not just of my own but of the British Medical Association, the Royal College of GPs, Royal College of Nursing and many others,” he said.

Conservative election poster 2010

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

BBC News – St Ives MP Andrew George rejects government health bill

An MP from Cornwall has called on fellow MPs and the public to speak out over government health reform plans.

St Ives Liberal Democrat MP Andrew George said he was concerned about the “potential risks” surrounding government policy on the NHS.

Mr George said he feared the health service would be “driven more by profit than by concern about patient care”.

Related: Lib Dems hint at rebellion on health bill vote | Politics | guardian.co.uk

Trust is ‘fined’ £400k after missing treatment targets | Wilmslow Express – menmedia.co.uk

[Part of the NHS is fined for not having enough money …]

Macclesfield’s NHS Trust has lost out on £400,000 for missing targets and treating readmitted patients and its chairman has admitted that there is ‘serious work to be done’.

East Cheshire NHS Trust, which runs Macclesfield’s hospital, must spend less money than it gets every year.

The trust has £167m to spend and planned a small surplus of £250,000 for this financial year.

But at the end of June the trust reported a surplus of only £7,000 – which it had hoped to be £283,000 for this quarter.

The trust is off-target because it was penalised for failing to treat enough patients within 18 weeks of referral.

Taxpayers losing out on PFI – MPs « Shropshire Star

Investors in firms providing public services could be making “excessive profits” by selling on shares in the schemes, a critical report by MPs has revealed.

The powerful cross-party Public Accounts Committee, which scrutinises Government spending, said taxpayers should get a “much better deal” from private finance initiative (PFI) schemes than they currently do.

The MPs found PFI investors were using off-shore arrangements to minimise tax, adding further cost to the projects. Almost three-quarters of the shares in Innisfree, one of the leading PFI investment firms, are held off-shore, the committee heard.

The report said: “Tax planning and the use of tax havens as a way of avoiding UK tax are not uncommon. We heard that 72% of Innisfree’s shares are held by shareholders based in Guernsey.”

The UK has 700 PFI contracts, with a further 61 in procurement and many more being considered. But the MPs said: “Some of Government’s case for using PFI has not been based on robust analysis, but on ill founded comparisons and invalid assumptions.”

Continue ReadingNHS news review

NHS news review

Spread the love

Apologies that I’ve not done a NHS news review for a few days – I’ve had hardware/networking problems.

Lansley has called for health care apps – I wonder if Pepsi, KentuckyFriedMSG and McShit will be contributing any advising on healthy eating …

UNISON protests wealthy private patients leapfrogging in the NHS
UNISON protests wealthy private patients leapfrogging in the NHS

UNISON have been protesting about the introduction of a two-tier NHS. This is clearly an issue of privatising the NHS.

Conservative election poster 2010

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

NHS invites software developers to create healthcare apps – 8/22/2011 – Computer Weekly

The Department of Health is calling on software developers to create apps for use by the NHS.

Health secretary Andrew Lansley wants medical professionals and software developers to come up with ideas for “apps and maps” that would “help patients make informed decisions about their care.”

Protest to stop private patients queue-jumping / Britain / Home – Morning Star

A protest was staged outside the Department of Health today to call for controversial health reforms to be ditched as they allow private patients to “leapfrog” to the front of NHS waiting lists.

Health union Unison, which organised the protest, warned that a lethal cocktail of economic uncertainty, spiralling waiting lists and budget deficits meant it was the “worst possible time” to be pressing ahead with the Health and Social Care Bill, which will bring in a major, untried, untested reorganisation.

The demonstration saw an acrobat dressed as a fat-cat businessman leapfrog a “living” NHS queue straight into the arms of a waiting “surgeon.”

Unison head of health Christina McAnea said: “If the Health and Social Care Bill goes ahead, the outlook for the NHS and patients looks bleak.

“The government’s polices have already led to NHS patients waiting longer, often in great pain, for their operations.

“The Bill will make matters worse by taking the cap off the number of private patients that hospitals are allowed to treat.

“It will be an enormous temptation for cash-strapped hospitals to boost their income by prioritising paying patients, pushing NHS patients even further down the ever-spiralling waiting lists.

“Even 14 of the elite group of foundation trusts ended the last financial year in deficit, which is a grim warning for the future of NHS finances.

“The economic uncertainty and budget deficits add to this lethal cocktail and it should be obvious to the government that now is not the time to bring in this massive, damaging NHS reorganisation.”

Unison said that latest statistics revealed NHS waiting times were increasing, with those waiting six months or more for treatment up by 61 per cent in the last year, while the government’s drive for £20 billion in efficiency savings was said to be leading to ward closures, staff cuts and rationing across the country.

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 coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.

BMA Exposes Government’s Unjustifiable Changes in Healthy Pension Scheme | News Tonight

In a shocking revelation, it has come to light that the controversial Government plans to reform NHS pensions could put an extra £230,000 burden on GPs over their career. It has been reported that BMA forecasts have revealed that the NHS pension reforms made by the Government earlier this year are already raiding GPs up to £125,000 each over the course of their lifetimes.

Further, GPs will lose £124,500 by the time they reach 85, if the proposal produced in April, involving shift from use of the retail price index to the lower consumer price index to uplift NHS pensions, is passed.

Reacting to the unjustifiable changes to the financially healthy pension scheme, Dr. Hamish Meldrum, chair of the BMA council, said: “his isn’t about affordability; it’s about the Treasury looking for yet another quick hit from public sector workers. Doctors pursuing a career as a consultant or GP will have to pay significantly higher contributions in return for a much reduced pension at retirement”.

Anger as ‘ludicrious’ referral gateway rejects up to a quarter of GP requests – newsarticle-content – Pulse

Exclusive GPs have been forced to formally complain to PCTs over a series of technical and administrative problems with referral management centres, with one practice claiming a quarter of its referrals have been rejected.

In NHS West Essex, GPs have been left frustrated by rejections and the insistence of administrators that referrals are resubmitted, sometimes several times, without having been triaged by its Central Referral Service.

Examples of rejections include a referral to a surgeon for diagnosis and removal of a lump refused because a minor surgery proforma was not attached, and a gynaecology referral refused ‘in error’.

A GP in Uttlesford, Essex, who wished not to be named, said: ‘I am vehemently opposed to referral management systems. It is intensely frustrating and is not working for administrative reasons and ludicrous technical problems.’

A practice manager at a practice in Essex claimed a quarter of its referrals had been rejected by the referral triage system: ‘I feel our patients are suffering. So many receive letters stating their appointments have been cancelled.’

NHS spends nearly £16 million a year on headhunters – Telegraph

The NHS is spending nearly £16million a year paying recruitment firms to headhunt senior executives … it was revealed yesterday.

In one example, a primary care trust paid an agency more than £111,000 to fill the post of its chief executive, only to later promote its own deputy into the role.

The vast expenditure comes despite Government promises to cut back on “wasteful bureaucracy” among health trusts.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has pledged to reduce money spent on managers and pen-pushers by 45 per cent over the next four years. Hospitals are also being forced to axe thousands of front-line staff in an effort to save the NHS billions of pounds.

Yesterday, Freedom of Information figures revealed primary care trusts and strategic health authorities spent an estimated £15.9million paying recruitment firms to hire new managers.

Darzi centres heralded as “massive waste of money” – News – Practice Business

PCTs struggle to justify Darzi centres after revelations of low patient numbers

Statistics from over 95 PCTs have revealed that 26% of Darzi centres have fewer than 500 registered patients, and that 35% had fewer than 1,000 patents.

The new information was gained through the Freedom of information Act and revealed via investigation by GP online that also found that over 12% of all Darzi centres had no registered patients whatsoever (though some stated that they did not offer this option). One of the centres had just a single registered patient.

Each PCT was forced to set up a Darzi centre under the previous government as part of a plan to provide primary patient care seven days a week between the hours of 8am and 8pm each day.

The centres cost around £1.1m each year and the General Practitioners Committee’s (GPC) negotiator, Dr Peter Holden, has stated that the on reflection the centres were “a massive waste of money”, saying that it was “outrageous” that centres had failed to register fewer than 500 patents.

Adelaide Surgery in Southampton has just 1,220 patients registered, GP Online reveals, despite receiving £907,000 in 2011/12, which means the centre receives around £743 per patient per year – or seven times as most GP practices.

[I need to check, but I think that the real issue about Darzi centres (Polyclinics) is that PCTs were forced to provide them by government ~ Darzi clinics being the latest policy fad. ‘The Plot Against the NHS’ by Colin Leys and Stewart Player discusses Darzi clinics.]

Continue ReadingNHS news review

NHS news review

Spread the love

The Lancet on the failed NHS records IT project.

Corporate Watch investigates the Co-operation and Competition Panel (CCP) quango that supports privatisation and the abolition of public sector NHS provision.

Waiting times for Accident and Emergency treatment increase.

Conservative election poster 2010

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

Winner of world’s most mismanaged health project » Hospital Dr

This is an editorial from The Lancet.

If there were an award for the world’s most mismanaged national health project, England’s National Programme for IT in the NHS would be a strong contender, if not outright winner. Started in 2002, Tony Blair’s brainchild has, like the computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey, gone badly wrong.

The main aim of the project was to create a fully integrated centralised electronic care records system to improve services and patient care by 2007. The budget for the undertaking was a substantial £11·4 billion. Nine years on, the Department of Health has spent £6·4 billion on the project so far, failed to meet its initial deadline, and has had to abandon the central goal of the project because it is unable to deliver a universal system.

Given the ineptitude that has characterised this project, disaster was almost certain. According to a new report by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the Department has failed to get value for the vast sums of money that it has paid contractors. Of the two companies that are still involved in the project, one has yet to deliver the bulk of the systems that it was contracted to supply despite being paid £1·8 billion since 2002, and the other is being paid £9 million to implement systems at each NHS site that have cost other organisations outside the programme £2 million.

The Department seems to have been foolishly duped by commercial companies that promised the sun, cost the earth, and delivered not much more than hot air. Damningly, PAC’s report states: “The Department could have avoided some of the pitfalls and waste if they had consulted at the start of the process with health professionals.”

Corporate Watch : LATEST NEWS : Co-operating and competing to privatise the NHS

“NHS delays operations ‘as it waits for patients to die or go private’” thundered the front page of the Daily Telegraph after the release of the Co-operation and Competition Panel (CCP)’s report on choice and competition in elective care late last month. Most of the major papers and news broadcasters jumped on board, the majority repeating that Primary Care Trusts (PCTs), in an attempt to cut costs, are setting minimum waiting times for patients, who then either “die or go private.” A Daily Mail leader declared: “it’s hard to conceive of a more barbaric tactic than making patients wait so long for surgery that they either go private or die.”

But reading the report, it turns out they were getting all worked up for nothing. For a start, the report is looking into elective care. Elective care includes things like hip replacements, knee replacements, foot surgery, tinnitus, varicose veins and so on: “pre-arranged, non-emergency care that includes scheduled operations,” in the words of the Department of Health. Serious, painful conditions of course, but not ones that will kill you if you have to wait a couple more weeks for an operation. As a weary David Stout, director of the Primary Care Trust Network, told the Today programme: “the suggestion people are dying waiting for routine elective care doesn’t make sense.”

So what’s this “waiting for patient to die” claim? It comes from paragraph 131 of the report, in which the writers explain they were told: “increasing waiting times for patients did have the potential to save money overall” and then they quote someone who says: “Experience suggests that if patients wait longer then some will remove themselves from the list or will no longer require treatment when it is finally offered.”

This is footnoted, but not to explain who is being quoted.* Instead, the note says:

“We understand that patients will ‘remove themselves from the waiting list’ either by dying or by paying for their own treatment at private sector providers.”

And that’s what the fuss is about. One unsubstantiated footnote. We asked the CCP if they had based this on any evidence but they didn’t reply. So the Co-operation and Competition Panel – which, if the government’s reforms go through, will become a decision-making body within the NHS – is saying that if someone’s knee replacement is delayed by an extra two weeks they may choose to die rather than wait. As the Daily Mail put it: that is sickening.


We are told early on that it is based on “around 80 submissions from NHS providers, GPs, Primary Care Trusts, Strategic Health Authorities, independent and third sector providers, representative organisations and others,” but that those submissions made by the independent sector providers – i.e. private companies – will not be disclosed due to: “concerns that publication of these submissions would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the organisation which had made the submission.” This makes things difficult, because the report is based on the companies’ allegations that PCTs are unfairly denying them work by encouraging patients to use public healthcare providers. Quotes of no more than a couple of sentences are pulled out of the companies’ submissions, but we are never told which company made them or what context they were made in.

Reading through the submissions made by the PCTs which we are allowed to read, it seems they were kept in the dark too. Many seem confused because the CCP has told them they have been accused of something but they haven’t been told what. NHS Somerset, among others, says it is “difficult to comment directly on the points raised without sight of the specific allegations raised.” NHS North Yorkshire and York note: “without further detail or specific examples it is difficult to respond to this allegation.”

Recommendations for the whole NHS are conjured up from a combination of accusations from a few un-named companies, explanations from a few PCTs and the panel’s “understanding” of the issue, which, as we have seen, isn’t exactly foolproof. To show PCTs are encouraging GPs to restrict patients’ ability to choose which provider they go to for their treatment, for example, we are given two, single sentence quotes from un-named PCTs and three unsubstantiated allegations made by unnamed providers. There is no thorough analysis of all the evidence taken together and no suggestion of exactly how widespread this so-called anti-competitive behaviour is. Early on they say they saw “many” examples of PCTs “excessively constraining patients’ ability to choose” and then, later on: “a significant number of PCTs are restricting patient choice and competition in routine elective care,” but that’s about it.

If the Health and Social Care bill goes through the CCP’s remit will only widen. The Department of Health has already announced that the “any qualified provider” policy will be extended into community and mental health services and it will not stop there. David Cameron and his health secretary Andrew Lansley are always keen to say how their reforms will bring an end to the reign of pen-pushing bureaucrats in the NHS but they are quietly loading an unelected body run by bureaucrats (albeit pro-market bureaucrats) with the power to censure and overrule any doctors, managers or staff that try to keep healthcare public.

Number of NHS patients waiting more than four hours in A&E doubles | Society | The Guardian

The number of patients waiting more than four hours for treatment in accident and emergency departments has almost doubled in the space of a year, the latest statistics reveal.

Figures show 161,422 patients were left waiting over four hours for “major A&E” treatment between April and June 2011 – 91% more than during the same period in 2010.

A broader measure including minor injuries units and walk-in centres was also up 90%, to 165,279.

The increases come despite a slight fall in the number of patients using A&E services, from 3.6 million to 3.58 million, scotching past Department of Health assertions that the longer waits were down to increased pressure on services.

Continue ReadingNHS news review