And does it matter if I still get treatment free at the point of use?

The short answer is yes, not just plans but plenty of private contracts have been issued taking the NHS down the privatisation route. And yes, it will matter to you when you have to pay for your treatment from medical insurance and risk bankruptcy if you require multiple or long-term care. Here is the ‘blueprint’ for privatisation laid nearly 30 years ago by Letwin and Redwood – see for yourself how close we are to the end game.

In 1988 Letwin and Redwood (conservative) laid down the blueprint for the privatisation of the NHS.  It is worth reading this document in full as it will explain both our current position and give insight into the next steps.

Letwin and Redwood

Starting with a negative analysis of the use of waiting times to ration resources they swiftly moved into the reasons why the NHS needs a fundamental overhaul:

At the end of 1986 (the latest date for which figures are available), there were almost 700,000 people on NHS waiting lists; of these, half were destined to wait more than two months for treatment and one in fifty for more than a year.

When compared to today’s figures of 3.66 million waiting for routine treatment, up 11% from Dec 15 – Dec 16 and a target time now of 18 weeks (nearly 5 months) with 92% waiting significantly longer than that, House of Commons/Feb/2017  we can see the figures used by Letwin and Redwood actually reflected an efficient NHS service.   But then the premise for privatisation must start from the basis that the current system is broken.  

By chapter 2 they confirm;  [note the italics]

The need for change is now widely accepted.

The first step is to restructure at management level and make the NHS bodies independent to ‘give clear lines of responsibility’ which do not reach back to government.

  1. Establishment of the NHS as an independent trust.
  2. Increased use of joint ventures between the NHS and the private sector.
  3. Extending the principle of charging.
  4. A system of  ‘health credits’.
  5. A national health insurance scheme.

It would appear that we are currently moving between point 2 and 3 of this agenda.

By chapter 3,  Letwin and Redwood introduce the notion of charging – an idea fundamentally at odds with the ethos of the NHS – free at the point of delivery.

Another avenue which has been tentatively explored by the Government is charging. In principle, this could be extended to the point of universality – a charge for every service. That could permanently solve the problems of waiting lists and of basic attitudes towards patients – since the NHS could charge enough for each service to ensure that demand matched supply, every patient would become a valuable customer, bringing  funds to the system. If combined with the establishment of the NHS as an independent trust, this would in effect turn the NHS into a nationalised non-profit service competing on level terms with the private sector, and at arms-length  from the Government.

The NHS was already a nationalised non-profit service, so what is new here is the idea that it should ‘compete on level terms with the private sector’ and be ‘arms-length’ from the Government.  ‘Charge enough for each service to ensure that demand matched supply’ indicates hiking prices on treatments in demand – in the same way that airfares rise in school holidays.  Aware that charging would preclude sections of the population from accessing health care the pair put forward the idea of ‘credit notes’ which would create a two-tier system.

Each individual patient would receive, from his GP, a ‘credit note’, entitling him to treatment for a specific complaint. This credit note would cover the charge ·levied by the NHS for the treatment in question. If the patient chose instead to go to a private sector hospital he would be entitled to carry the credit with him making up any difference in cost out of his own resources or through private insurance.        

In order to bring in the ‘benefits of marketisation it is suggested that;

In short, increased competition would be created not only between the NHS and the private sector but also between one NHS hospital and another. Under such an arrangement, it might be possible to go even further than the establishment of the entire NHS as an independent trust or company: each major hospital or district could be separately established with only a national funding authority left at the centre to administer the payment of credits.

And finally, we reach the end goal – a fragmented NHS service, competing with itself and private providers, funded by individual payments into a National Health Insurance Scheme. 

A method of overcoming the drawback of a pure ‘credits’  scheme is to ally it to a national health insurance system. Under such a system, every adult would contribute a fixed insurance premium each year to a national health insurance fund.

Having established that under this scheme the NHS would charge the full cost of each treatment to be reclaimed by insurance, Letwin and Redwood confirm;

The existence of a national health insurance scheme would not, of course, be to the detriment of the private sector. Indeed, under any of the variants, contributors to the national scheme could be given rights to carry some or all of the insurance cover to the private sector, either in the form of rebates for private insurance or in the form of ‘credits’ usable in private sector hospitals.

The insurance premium could be actuarially adjusted, like car insurance to reflect the varying risks associated with different categories of contributor though this would need to be balanced by subsidies to those who were not well off, and were either already ill or in a high – risk category.

Before concluding;

To a great degree, the divisions between the public and private sector would fade.

Indeed, given that we would all be paying the full cost of treatment from our own insurance policies.  If you have recently taken a pet for treatment at your local vet you will know the eye-watering cost of a single blood test, let alone the management of a long-term condition.  Although apparently convinced by their own arguments, they realised that moving from a universal system of free treatment to one where we individually cover our own care through differentiated insurance, would take time.

A system of this sort would be fraught with transitional difficulties. And it would be foolhardy to move so far from the present one in a single leap. But need there be just one leap? Might it not, rather, be possible to work slowly from the  present system towards a national insurance scheme? One could begin, for example, with the establishment of the NHS as an independent trust, with increased joint ventures between the NHS and the private sector; move on next to the use of  credits’ to meet standard charges set by a central NHS funding. administration for independently managed hospitals or districts; and only at the last stage create a national health insurance scheme separate from the tax system.

‘…and only at the last stage create a national health insurance scheme separate from the tax system.’   The last stage is presumably when the entire reorganisation is complete and we have no option but to take out our own insurance policies.

Read more of this story by following the link below and find out how talks between Jeremy Hunt and Kaiser Permanente are sealing the deal with the big US health insurance companies waiting to step in.

This is an editted version of a post by socialistinsurrey.com.

 

 

 

 

Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

One Comment

  1. rosemarycantwell says:

    1 June 2017

    Dear Della,

    When our National Insurance premiums were taken from us, we were told that this would pay for our National Health Service. And free at the point of need and delivery.

    I note that Mr Farron was talking of a penny in the pound to get the necessary funding to enable our NATIONAL Health Service to be properly funded.

    Why would anyone object to this if it enabled us all to know that we and our families will always have our FREE National Health Service?

    Charging of course is not new in the NHS. Dental Charges can be of eye-watering amounts for such things as crowns and root canal surgery but not as much as it would be for private treatment I aver.

    Unless we stop the rot now, here and now, we shall no longer have any free health care worth considering because we need to have QUALIFIED doctors, QUALIFIFED nurses and QUALIFIED paramedics rather than people who are not qualified to triage us as can happen in “111” triage systems.

    Somewhat like the idea of TEACHERS being replaced by teaching assistants, and POLICE being replaced by Police Support Officers, and SOLICITORS and BARRISTERS being replaced by paralegals, our whole national infrastructure seems to have been “watered down”.

    What next? We go back to herbalism? Why not? Good herbal medicine can be effective and indeed some GPs actually encourage good remedies along with pharmaceutical ones.

    I think I saw a way through all of this in the national press – get rid of central funding, take it away from the CCGs, take it away from the health authorities and instead give it to the DOCTORS, the GPs and have many more GP surgeries across the land, and that they can get consultants to do what is necessary for patients.

    I am not saying that patients should not go to hospital, but that DOCTORS should hold the pursestrings not the CCGs.

    What do you think?

    Best wishes

    Rosemary

What do you think?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

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

Join 483 other subscribers

Follow us on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: