The NHS Confederation has launched a two-part challenge; “to politicians to create the space for change essential for the NHS’s future and to the NHS to be ready to make the change, and do it well”.  It is based on the oft repeated doomsday scenario that funding will be, at best, level in real terms whilst demand continues to rise, drugs cost more, and NHS inflation is higher than general inflation.  Something must be done – and this is something.

Sadly and typically, it does not add that to the demand sided that social care is on its knees and mental health services are under funded.  It’s an acute foundation trust’s perspective on the world.  Apparently all is not yet lost; we may not need co-payments and user charges, if we can just reconfigure services.

Most of the justification stems from the supposed frustration that what may be beneficial changes are blocked by local (and sometimes national!) politics or politicians – who just do not see the case for change.  The logic is highly convoluted and in fact illustrates why so much NHS change is opposed.  It says we have a financial crisis so we have to centralise services (reconfigure) but then says the changes should be justified on clinical grounds and led by clinicians. Make up your mind which is it clinical or financial.

Most cases for change which are put out to support reconfiguration are poor.  They try the same trick of arguing clinical improvements but everyone in fact knows the driver for change is to save money.  The cases are invariably poorly argued in language that does not find any empathy with stakeholders.  The assumptions come from the same people who did all the projections to support PFI or awarding FT status – ie assumptions about activity and quality and about income and expenditure which prove to be grossly wrong within a few short years.  We are right to be sceptical.  Even those of us who are in favour of major changes in hospital configuration despair at how poorly the NHS makes the case; how inept the consultations are and how confused the messages become.

The best case for reconfiguration and the one always touted is Stroke Care in London.  There is evidence to show real clinical improvement – fewer deaths – but where is the evidence that it saved any money?  There is none because almost certainly it didn’t.

If we suppose that someone else led the case for change and did it well and that we had some agreed framework overall for managing change then could we stop opportunistic local politicians from opposing what they would portray as cuts?  Of course not.  Big party politics is becoming less dominant and we have local politicians now who are aligned to parties but entirely free to campaign in any way they like – even if their national party is arguing the opposite.

We need a new governance model which removes the NHS from its 7 decades of isolation and special treatment and puts it where it belongs – within the rest of the public sector.  It cannot be “freed up” to carry on making its own top down decisions like it has over so many bonkers schemes – effectively removed from proper accountability.  Whilst national government sets out the “what” in terms of key frameworks, the entitlements and standards, the “how” that is delivered is for local determination – and that includes decisions about most of what we call reconfiguration.  Rather than removing local politics and local politicians from the decisions about how our money is allocated and how priorities are set they must be central to it.  NHS providers can have local autonomy if they have local stakeholder governance but only as much autonomy as is good for the care system as a whole.

If we wish to save money we can have less of a market and less fragmentation as that has added cost for no discernable benefit, and we could stop the waste caused by many top down imposed, well meaning but disastrous changes – like a £3bn system reorganisation.

I fear the challenge will not get much of a response and it shouldn’t.  It assumes that the NHS has the capability to plan for change after 2015 when it palpably does not have that capacity now, if it ever did. There is no longer any strategic glue in the system – how can you plan anything which is being progressively marketised, privatised and fragmented?  It requires a common perspective on the challenges but once again an analysis starts from the presumption that we have to accept the mantra that taxpayers will not pay to improve care.  In just about every developed country the cost of care as a % of GPD is rising – so why not here too?

Why not pose the question differently?  If we want a modern care system which is universal and comprehensive and free at the point of need then what might we be prepared to pay for it? If the case is well made then the answer should be very different to retrenchment and gloom. Why pre-empt that debate?

I like politics. It is better than violence at resolving differences. You cannot take the politics out of the care debate.  The main parties are about as far apart as you can get on the NHS – one for a full market in health and care and the other for a predominantly public care service.  It makes a huge difference in 2015 which of these is guiding policy.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

One Comment

  1. There is a new world order and that is China and India. Their impact is irreversible and for countries like Britain that requires new thinking.

    Do we pretend that we are any longer a world power, or face reality and concentrate on what is possible.

    That means looking at what a sustainable economy is, without being the slaves of the Banking and financial sector.

    The financial sector is hoovering up all the wealth it can on such a monumental scale that London has now become the money laundering centre of the world.

    This has undermined the British economy as a whole and is the prime cause for the dismantling of the state apparatus, which has protected the financial assets of the few against the interests of the many.

    We must reverse this process if British society is to remain a stable democracy, money must be used to serve people rather than enslave them.

    The Capitalist system is strangling the life out of the economy instead of being it’s generator. That has always been the case until the birth of the labour movement.

    We are constantly being driven backwards to fit the requirements of capital, every penny spent on public need is a penny less in their pockets, that is what has to be reversed.

    Our health service needs to be publicly owned and funded by the state purse.

    We need to think of the NHS as an organic instrument that cares for people from the cradle to the grave. That means whatever it takes to provide that should be the objective.

    That would entail education, training, hospitals, local practices, mental health care centres, construction work, production of medicines, research of medicine and disease and anything else that is required to meet that end. All that should be considered is not the cost but what resources we have to do it.

    Private sector involvement utterly detracts away from delivering genuine care and restricts rather than provides service. The public accounts committee found for example that the private sector finance initiative cost double what a direct workforce could have achieved and with better quality.

    Money controlled by the private sector is holding development back in this country and throughout the world, it really is time we understood that in the 21st century.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 804 other subscribers.

Follow us on Twitter