Blog

  • Categories
  • Category Archives: Economics of healthcare

    Yorkshire Socialist Health Association

    Command and Control Management:

    The Deadly Embodiment of Neo-Liberalism at work in the Public Sector

    John and Joe Carlisle, Mad Management[1]

    Although the Command and Control style of management is a fairly modern phenomenon, like all ideas, its roots go much further back, to a very dominant model of how to discipline and organise institutions. The philosopher Michael Foucault famously uses 18th Century Utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon as a model for how a modern disciplinary society seeks to at all times to survey, or at least give the possibility of surveillance, its populace. The panopticon is a surveillance structure originally designed by Bentham for prisons but reproducible in any environment. The centre is occupied by a watchman who cannot be seen but who is surrounded in the round by the cells or workplaces of those he surveys. Each in their own compartmentalized sections the watchman, or manager, can see everything the prisoners do. As Foucault describes ‘[t]hey are like so many cages, so many small theatres, in which each actor is alone, perfectly individualized and constantly visible.’[2]

    Foucault rightly saw ‘panopticism’ as a paradigm through which individuals could be measured, assessed, marked and surveilled; it was not simply a design for a prison but a “how to” command and control for a whole variety of institutions from schools, hospitals and factories. It is worth quoting Foucault again, this time at length, as he describes the consequences of such a model:

    He is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication… if they are workers, there are no disorders, no theft, no coalitions, none of those distractions that slow down the rate of work, make it less perfect or cause accidents. The crowd, a compact mass, a locus of multiple exchanges, individualities merging together, a collective effect, is abolished and replaced by a collection of separated individualities. From the point of view of the guardian, it is replaced by a multiplicity that can be numbered and supervised. 

    This top down model of designing the workplace was explicitly compatible with industrialization where work was broken down into small repetitive actions that can easily be measured and codified. What is harder to understand is why the model was placed upon all forms of work. Why do so many managers insist upon forcing this model onto industries, such as service, which it does not fit, and more tragically, why use it as the model for management in public services?

    It is now common for most people who work now to have a sense of being monitored. Whether through the ubiquitous CCTV camera, which now often can record audio, to electronic clock ins,’ recordings of all phone calls made in a call centres or on workphones, targets to be hit, milometers which time how long a delivery takes to go from A to B, to IPad’s whose programs must followed to the letter. What this produces is an abundance of data, a mountain of information which can be turned into charts, graphs, and reports. This gives the manager a great sense of control; to him nothing is hidden.

    Except of course a lot is hidden. Data by its very nature hides vast amounts of knowledge. The time it takes to get from A to B does not reveal that the final stage may add 20 mins because there is nowhere to park the lorry. The failure to reach the target may simply reveal the arbitrary nature of the target. In data the whole complexity of the human world is erased, flattened out into a spreadsheet, and the manager ends up mistaking the map for the terrain.

    Not only does it give the illusion of knowledge but command and control management style doesn’t work.  It makes waste rather than reducing it. This article will argue that it is an empirical fact that these modes of supervision fail to achieve what they claim to. Systems thinking is a far more effective way of improving organizations, and ironically, it has the data to back it up.

     Systems Thinking

     In 2003 Professor John Seddon published Freedom from Command and Control. [3] It caused quite a stir, demolishing most of the principles upon which the government had based its efficiency drive – which later morphed into wholly inappropriate and damaging austerity policies. It refuted the top down principle of leadership that is implicit in the New Public Management (NPM), which is a promoter of what Seddon calls ‘the management factory’: ‘The management factory manages inventories, scheduling, planning, reporting and so on. It sets the budgets and targets. It is a place that works with information that is abstracted from work. Because of that it can have a phenomenally negative impact on the sustainability of the enterprise.”

    The case studies gave irrefutable evidence of the damage caused by this neo-liberal mechanism in the public sector. Seddon’s solution was systems thinking as expanded in his next book, Systems Thinking in the Public Sector.[4] Here example after example illustrated the waste caused by NPM, especially as advocated by the likes of Barber (targets etc.) and Varney (shared services – see appendix)

    The research and analysis conducted by Professor John Seddon, which has looked at reasons for diseconomies of scale specifically in service organisations, fundamentally challenges the ‘Command and Control’ logics that underpin much of the public sector. Instead case study after case study confirms that concepts such as ‘designing against demand’, ‘removing failure demand’ deliver outstanding success  , while the typical drive to standardisation and specialisation of function results in inappropriate services being delivered, resulting in turn in escalating monitoring, management and correction costs.

    This, however, requires a change of thinking about how organisations work best in this the 21st century. Over a hundred years ago the workforce was only one generation removed from an industrial culture. Their understanding of industrial production and its organisation was very limited. Consequently even the best designers of organisations, e.g. Henry Ford, the Quakers, Cadburys, Rowntree’s and Clarks, were at best paternal, and at worst, reductionist pragmatists, i.e. treating workers as intelligent tools. However, even the latter did not mean not trusting them or attempting to look after them. After all, Henry Ford doubled the wages of his workforce overnight and refused to allow women to labour after 5pm so they could look after their families. He was also sued by his major shareholder for doubling his workers’ wages at the expense of dividends. The shareholder won.

    Today, we have a workforce that is literate and numerate and is at home with modern organisations, BUT are managed as those of 100 years ago. Why is this? The reason is the Command and Control style is more comfortable for those leaders whose upbringing (conditioning) and training at Business Schools has brainwashed them into feeling that being in charge means taking control. As they cannot be everywhere they therefore use measuring as a proxy for their physical presence. This usually translates into columns of comparative data or run charts, tick boxes compliance, and often targets to be reached as evidence of success of failure.

    So, who is the guardian in the panopticon? It is HR. In many public sector organisations HR has seized this opportunity to become the enforcer of compliance for the board. Rejoicing in their power they have abandoned their traditional role of looking after the workforce and now “guard” it.

    Politicians are entranced by these governance measures. They can conceive of nothing more confidence boosting than setting targets for, e.g. hospital waits, housing allocations, repairs completed. Their mental model is captured in the Table 1, below, in the left hand column. It is informed by their neo-liberal mindset, something they have imbibed from exposure to the right wing press; the fascination with material success, for example Peter Mandelson, playmaker of the Labour party said twenty years ago that he was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes”; privatisation continues even though it is clearly an utter failure; and cost-cutting  and targets are the first knee jerk reactions to perceived public sector overspend.

    But there is another way. It comes in the form of a System of Profound Knowledge, first propounded by the great management philosopher, Dr W. Edwards Deming, whose principles are best presented in the work of Professor John Seddon, head of Vanguard.

    The Seddon Vanguard model, constructed from his research into effective organisations is the right hand column (Table 1).

    Table 1. The two conflicting models of management

    The question is why, in particular do UK politicians favour the Command and Control model? Our theory is that it is the “control” element that matters most – and, which has caused the most waste, and managers and politicians in particular are comforted by the illusion of control even when it clearly causes so much damage to people and resources as the examples below illustrate. [5]

    • Western Australia’s Department of Treasury and Finance Shared Service Centre promised savings of $56 million, but incurred costs of $401 million.
    • A National Audit Office report said that the UK Research Councils project was due to be completed by

    December 2009 at a cost of £79 million. But, in reality, it was not completed until March 2011, at a cost of £130 million.

    • The Department for Transport’s Shared Services, initially forecast to save £57m, is now estimated to cost the taxpayer £170m, a failure in management that the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee described as a display of ‘stupendous incompetence’

    Covid-19 has made the flaws are even more obvious. That greatest of all control freakery, the centralising state, has been shown for disaster that it is. The Health Secretary has kept control of all the testing and tracing administered from the centre, and it is failing at every level. The report from the Independent SAGE, a group of 12 leading scientists headed by former UK Government chief scientific advisor, David King, said the governments test, track and trace system is not “fit for purpose”.

    The government’s current approach to this system, including the contact-tracing app, is “severely constrained by lack of coordination, lack of trust, lack of evidence of utility and centralisation”, it adds. “The effective operation of this subsystem is also complicated by the apparent failure of the app that was designed to facilitate identification of contacts of those who have Covid-19” (Digital Health, June 16, 2020). We are talking here about thousands of British lives and further damage to a reeling economy.

    Dr W Edwards Deming summed it up perfectly: “Most people imagine that the present style of management has always existed and is a fixture. Actually, it is a modern invention – a prison created by the way in which people interact.”  He then asked the question:

     How do we achieve quality? Which of the following is the answer? Automation, new machinery, more computers, gadgets, hard work, best efforts, merit system with annual appraisal, make everybody accountable, management by objectives, management by results, rank people, rank teams, divisions, etc., reward the top performers, punish low performers, more statistical quality control, more inspection, establish an office of quality, appoint someone to be in charge of quality, incentive pay, work standards, zero defects, meet specifications, and motivate people.”[6]

    Answer: None of the above. (Will someone please tell our politicians.)

    All of the ideas above for achieving quality try to shift the responsibility from management. Quality is the responsibility of management. It cannot be delegated. What is needed is profound knowledge. A transformation of management is required, and to do that a transformation of thinking is required – actually the neo-liberal paradigm is so entrenched that that nothing less than metanoia (a total change of heart and mind) is needed.

    When this transformation happens almost miraculous levels of performance occur. For example, when left to the medical staff only, the level of delayed bed days fell from over 12,000 per month to under 6000 in a year (2017/2018) – an over 50% reduction! Much less command and control leads to much more economic and effective activity. It is time all the politicians learned to trust their public servants much more, and abandon the illusion of control foisted on them by neo-liberal ideologists from Labour and Conservatives. It is a political thing, not a party thing. The whole system of government must be overhauled.


    References

    [1] https://jcashbyblog.wordpress.com

    [2]Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, trans. A. Sheridan (Vintage books, New York, 1995) p. 200

    [3] Seddon 2003 ‘Freedom from Command and Control’ Vanguard Education

    [4] Seddon 2008 ‘Systems thinking in the Public Sector’ Triarchy: Axminster

    [5] John Seddon 2012 submission to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee – Public Sector reform and Local Government. 2012

    [6] Deming, W.E. (1993) Out of the Crisis, MIT: Cambridge

     

    4 Comments

    HIV charities, community groups, health professionals and activists have today written to Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

    They write to express their profound concern at the decision to roll back the Secretary of State’s commitment on PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for HIV) in England.

    Last week it was announced that the budget provided to local authorities for the implementation of PrEP would be reduced from £16 million to £11 million.

    The letter says this budget cut for PrEP jeopardises the ability to fully roll-out the most powerful prevention tool to help fulfil Mr Hancock’s commitment to end HIV by 2030.

    The HIV sector has requested an urgent meeting with Mr Hancock to discuss his decision to cut funding for this important HIV prevention intervention.

    Please read the letter here:

    Letter to Matt Hancock from HIV sector – PrEP funding July 2020

     

    Comments Off on Letter to Matt Hancock on profound concern over £5m cut to PrEP in England

    Treatments for COVID-19 could be manufactured for $1 a day or less, and distributed through mechanisms like those used for HIV, TB and malaria, reports Polly Clayden:

    First published by HIV i-Base in HTB (HIV Treatment Bulletin) on 14 April 2020.

    Polly Clayden, HIV i-Base

    If repurposed drugs, currently under investigation for COVID-19, show efficacy, they could be manufactured profitably at very low costs – according to an analysis published in the Journal of Virus Eradication
    on 8 April 2020. [1]

    As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic grows daily, clinical trials are underway worldwide looking at potential ways to prevent new infections, treat those already infected and reduce the severity of the disease.

    Results from randomised controlled trials of repurposed drugs – ie those currently indicated for other diseases so shortening the drug discovery and development timeline – are expected between May and September of this year.

    Andrew Hill and colleagues – whose group have previously reliably predicted the minimum costs of drugs for hepatitis C and other diseases – calculated the costs of new potential treatments for COVID-19.

    The authors used established methods to make these calculations. They estimated the minimum costs of drug production by calculating the cost of active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), added to costs of excipients, formulation, packaging and a profit margin of 10%, to calculate the price of the final finished product (FFP) – the drug ready for use.

    The selected treatments were: remdesivir (previously used unsuccessfully against Ebola); favipiravir (influenza), lopinavir/ritonavir (HIV), chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine (malaria) and sofosbuvir and daclatasvir (HCV), azithromycin (pneumonia), and pirfenidone and tocilizumab (improve lung function and reduce inflammation).

    Remdesivir

    Remdesivir is given by IV infusion. A 10-day course of treatment is under investigation at a dose of 200 mg on the first day and 100 mg the following days.

    The authors estimated the cost per treatment to be approximately $9 per person – an estimated daily cost of $0.93.

    They note that costs for non-drug components associated with IV infusion were not included in this estimate:  saline, equipment (syringe, sterile water and IV lines) and staff time.

    Favipiravir

    Favipiravir is an oral treatment dosed at 600 mg twice daily. A 14-day course is being evaluated.

    The estimated cost of production for this course is $20 or $1.45 per day.

    The authors added that favipiravir was launched for sale in China in late February 2020 at a price of $231 per 14-day course.

    Lopinavir/ritonavir

    The standard dose of lopinavir/ritonavir is 400/100 mg oral combined pill twice daily. A 14-day course is also being evaluated.

    The estimated cost for this course is $4 or $0.28 per day.

    So far there has been no clear evidence of efficacy for lopinavir/ritonavir against COVID-19.

    Current list prices for a 14-day course range from $503 in the US to $15 in South Africa (and available through the Global Fund to low- middle-income countries for a medium of $9).

    Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine

    These old malaria treatments (since the ’50s) were calculated at 400 mg and 155 mg daily doses for 14 days of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, respectively.

    The estimated costs were $1 per course or $0.08 per day and $0.3 or $0.08 per day for the respective drugs.

    Available list prices for a 14-day course of hydroxychloroquine ranged from $19 in China to $2 in India.

    For chloroquine these prices ranged from $93 in US to $0.2 in Bangladesh for a course. The authors note that the Bangladesh price was lower than their estimate and the US one might be considered an outlier (by a considerable amount as the next most expensive price for a 14-day course, in the UK, was $8).

    Azithromycin

    Used in small pilot studies with hydrochloroquine (and contradictory results) to prevent bacterial superinfection.

    A 14-day course at a dose of 500 mg per day was calculated at $1.40 or $0.10 per day.

    List prices for azithromycin range between $63 per 14-day course in the US and $5 in India and Bangladesh.

    Sofosbuvir/daclatasvir

    Under evaluation in Iran for people with moderate to severe COVID-19 symptoms at a daily dosage of sofosbuvir/daclatasvir 400/600 mg.

    The estimated cost is $5 per 14-day course or $0.39 per day.

    These drugs were launched by originator manufacturers for treatment of Hepatitis C at eye-watering prices, which have fallen significantly in recent years.

    Earlier estimates of minimum price for generic production by Hill et al in 2016 were equivalent to $7.8 per 14-day course, so the new estimates represent a 6.6-fold reduction since the group’s original calculations.

    Fourteen-day list prices range from $18,610 in the US and $7 in India or $6 in Pakistan.

    Pirfenidone

    A dose of 801 mg three times a day for four weeks is being evaluated.

    The estimated cost for a 4-week course is $31 or $1.09 per day.

    List prices for a 4-week course range from $9,606 in the US to $124 in Bangladesh and $100 in India for a generic version.

    The authors explained that at $100, the lowest list prices are still higher than their estimate.

    Tocilizumab

    This monoclonal antibody is dosed as an IV infusion. Doses are based on weight (8 mg/kg) with a maximum single dose of 800 mg every 12 hours.

    The authors assumed an average bodyweight of 70 kg and a single dose of 560 mg.

    There were no API data available for tocilizumab – so they were unable to estimate the minimum cost of production.

    List prices for 560 mg single dose varied from $3,383 in the US to $510 in Pakistan.

    Several biosimilars are currently under development but these have yet to be approved and launched.

    Biosimilars can offer healthcare systems the potential to lower costs significantly. The UK is expected to save up to £200–300 million a year through the uptake of better-value biological medicines.

    Conclusion

    The authors emphasised that we do not know yet which or any of these drugs will show benefit. But this analysis shows that if that was the case they all could be manufactured for very low prices.

    Repurposed drugs might be the only option to treat COVID-19 for the next 12–18 months, until effective vaccines can be developed and manufactured at scale.

    Some of the treatments are already available as generic, with prices close to the cost of manufacture for low- and middle-income countries.

    Treatments for HIV, TB and malaria are distributed worldwide by the Global Fund and PEPFAR at prices close the cost of manufacture. These prices allow generic companies to make acceptable profits. The authors recommend that a similar model of drug distribution be adopted for COVID-19.

    They made four recommendations to ensure that anyone with COVID-19, in any country, would be able to access the treatment they need:

    1. Treatments showing efficacy in well-powered clinical trials should be made available worldwide at prices close to the cost of manufacture.
    2. There should be parallel manufacture by at least three different companies for each product, sourcing their API from different countries. Production of drugs in a range of countries will protect us from disruption or shortages in individual countries.
    3. There should be no intellectual property barriers preventing mass production of these treatments worldwide. We need open ‘technology transfer’ so that the methods used to manufacture the key drugs can be shared with any country deciding to produce the drugs locally.
    4. Results and databases from all COVID-19 clinical trials should be fully accessible so others can learn from them. To speed up access to these drugs, countries could rely on recognition of the review and approval of key treatments by regulatory authorities in the US or Europe, or other stringent regulatory authorities. There may not be time for the normal times of regulatory review by all individual countries.

    COMMENT

    The authors looked at costs of production for the main treatments currently being tested in clinical trials.  These drugs could be mass produced for $1 per day, often for a lot less, and distributed through mechanisms like those used for HIV, TB and malaria.

    Even remdesivir, the new potential treatment from Gilead, could be mass produced for $9 for a 10-day treatment course.  The cost of the saline (and other non-drug components) would be higher than the remdesivir, when given by IV infusion.

    Some of these treatments have US list prices 100 times higher than the cost of production. The Presidential-favourite untested COVID-19 candidate is over 10 times as much in US as the UK. 

    Anyone with COVID-19, in any country, should be able to access these new treatments if the prices can be kept close to production costs. 

    Previous minimum cost estimates by Hill et al have been invaluable to support price negotiations for treatments for other diseases. Among many others, MSF welcomed the COVID-19 estimates. [2] “Literally every single person on earth is susceptible to this pandemic – now is not the time for price gouging and pandemic profiteering” they wrote.

    At the moment, countries are becoming insular, competing for limited supplies of drugs, ventilators and PPE, in bidding wars, rather than engaging in a collaborative system for resources to be prioritised for areas of greatest need.  

    References

    1. Hill et al. Minimum costs to manufacture new treatments for COVID-19. Journal of Virus Eradication. Online 9 April 2020.
      http://viruseradication.com/journal-details/Minimum_costs_to_manufacture_new_treatments_for_COVID-19/
    2. MSF press release. MSF response on COVID-19 drugs pricing study by Andrew Hill et al. 10 April 2020.
      https://msfaccess.org/pt-br/node/56576?tid=9
    Comments Off on Potential treatments for COVID-19 could be manufactured for $1 a day or less

    The Socialist Health Association (SHA) published its first Blog on the COVID-19 pandemic last week (Blog 1 – 17th March 2020). A lot has happened over the past week and we will address some of these developments using the lens of socialism and health.

    1. Global crisis

    This is a pandemic, which first showed its potential in Wuhan in China in early December 2019. The Chinese government were reluctant to disclose the SARS- like virus to the WHO and wider world to start with and we heard about the courageous whistle blower Dr Li Wenliang, an ophthalmologist in Wuhan, who was denounced and subsequently died from the virus. The Chinese government recognised the risk of a new SARS like virus and called in the WHO and announced the situation to the wider world on the 31st December 2019.

    The starter pistols went off in China and their neighbouring countries and the risk of a global pandemic was communicated worldwide. The WHO embedded expert staff in China to train staff, guide the control measures and validate findings. Dr Li Wenliang who had contracted the virus, sadly died in early February and has now been exonerated by the State. Thanks to the Chinese authorities and their clinical and public health staff we have been able to learn about their control measures and the clinical findings and outcomes in scientific publications. This is a major achievement for science and evidence for public health control measures but….

    Countries in the Far East had been sensitised by the original SARS-CoV outbreak, which originated in China in November 2002. The Chinese government at that time had been defensive and had not involved the WHO early enough or with sufficient openness. The virus spread to Hong Kong and then to many countries showing the ease of transmission particularly via air travel. The SARS pandemic was thankfully relatively limited leading to global spread but ‘only’ 8,000 confirmed cases and 774 deaths. This new Coronavirus COVID-19 has been met by robust public health control measures in South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore. They have all shown that with early and extensive controls on travel, testing, isolating and quarantining that you can limit the spread and the subsequent toll on health services and fatalities. You will notice the widespread use of checkpoints where people are asked about contact with cases, any symptoms eg dry cough and then testing their temperature at arms length. All this is undertaken by non healthcare staff. Likely cases are referred on to diagnostic pods. In the West we do not seem to have put much focus on this at a population level – identifying possible cases, testing them and isolating positives.

    To look at the global data the WHO and the John Hopkins University websites are good. For a coherent analysis globally the Tomas Peoyu’s review  ‘Coronavirus: The Hammer and the dance’ is a good independent source as is the game changing Imperial College groups review paper for the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). This was published in full by the Observer newspaper on the 23rd March. That China, with a population of 1.4bn people, have controlled the epidemic with 81,000 cases and 3,260 deaths is an extraordinary achievement. Deaths from COVID-19 in Italy now exceed this total.

    The take away message is that we should have acted sooner following the New Year’s Eve news from Wuhan and learned and acted on the lessons of the successful public health control measures undertaken in China and the Far East countries, who are not all authoritarian Communist countries! Public Health is global and instead of Trump referring to the ‘Chinese’ virus he and our government should have acted earlier and more systematically than we have seen.

    Europe is the new epicentre of the spread and Italy, Spain and France particularly badly affected at this point in time. The health services in Italy have been better staffed than the NHS in terms of doctors/1000 population (Italy 4 v UK 2.8) as well as ITU hospital beds/100,000 (Italy 12.5 v UK 6.6). As we said in Blog 1 governments cannot conjure up medical specialists and nurses at whim so we will suffer from historically low medical staffing. The limited investment in ITU capacity, despite the 2009 H1N1 pandemic which showed the weakness in our system, is going to harm us. It was great to see NHS Wales stopping elective surgical admissions early on and getting on with training staff and creating new high dependency beds in their hospitals. In England elective surgery is due to cease in mid April! We need to ramp up our surge capacity as we have maybe 2 weeks at best before the big wave hits us. The UK government must lift their heads from the computer model and take note of best practice from other countries and implement lockdown and ramp up HDU/ITU capacity.

    In Blog 1 we mentioned that global health inequalities will continue to manifest themselves as the pandemic plays out and spare a thought for the Syrian refugee camps, people in Gaza, war torn Yemen and Sub Saharan Africa as the virus spreads down the African continent. Use gloves, wash your hands and self isolate in a shanty town? So let us not forget the Low Middle Income Countries (LMICs) with their weak health systems, low economic level, weak infrastructure and poor governance. International banking organisations, UNHCR, UNICEF, WHO and national government aid organisations such as DFID need to be resourced and activated to reach out to these countries and their people.

    1. The public health system

    We are lucky to have an established public health system in the UK and it is responding well to this crisis. However we can detect the impact of the last 10 years of Tory Party austerity which has underfunded the public health specialist services such as Public Health England (PHE) and the equivalents in the devolved nations, public health in local government and public health embedded in laboratories and the NHS. PHE has been a world leader in developing the PCR test on nasal and throat samples as well as developing/testing the novel antibody blood test to demonstrate an immune response to the virus. The jury is out as to what has led to the lack of capacity for testing for C-19 as the UK, while undertaking a moderate number of tests, has not been able to sustain community based testing to help guide decisions about quarantining key workers and get intelligence about the level of community spread. Compare our rates of testing with South Korea!

    We are lucky to have an infectious disease public health trained CMO leading the UK wide response who has had experience working in Africa. Decisions made at COBRA and announced by the Prime Minister are not simply based ‘on the science’ and no doubt there have been arguments on both sides. The CSO reports that SAGE has been subject to heated debate as you would expect but the message about herd immunity and stating to the Select Committee that 20,000 excess deaths was at this stage thought to be a good result was misjudged. The hand of Dominic Cummings is also emerging as an influencer on how Downing Street responds. Remember at present China with its 1.4bn population has reported 3,260 deaths. They used classic public health methods of identifying cases and isolating them and stopping community transmission as much as possible. Herd immunity and precision timing of control measures has not been used.

    The public must remain focused on basic hygiene measures – self isolating, washing of hands, social distancing and not be misled about how fast a vaccine can be developed, clinically tested and manufactured at scale. Similarly hopes/expectations should not be placed on novel treatments although research and trials do need supporting. The CSO, who comes from a background in Big Pharma research, must be seen to reflect the advice of SAGE in an objective way and resist the many difficult political and business pressures that surround the process. His experience with GSK should mean that he knows about the timescales for bringing a novel vaccine or new drugs safely to market.

    1. Local government and social care

    Local government (LAs) has been subject to year on year cuts and cost constraints since 2010, which have undermined their capability for the role now expected of them. The budget did not address this fundamental issue and we fully expect that in the crisis, central government will pass on the majority of local actions agreed at COBRA to them. During the national and international crisis LAs must be provided with the financial resources they need to build community hubs to support care in the community during this difficult time. The government need to support social care.

    COVID-19 is particularly dangerous to our older population and those with underlying health conditions. This means that the government needs to work energetically with the social care sector to ensure that the public health control measures are applied effectively but sensitively to this vulnerable population. The health protection measures which have been announced is an understandable attempt to protect vulnerable people but it will require community mobilisation to support these folk.

    Contingency plans need to be in place to support care and nursing homes when cases are identified and to ensure that they can call on medical and specialist nursing advice to manage cases who are judged not to require hospitalisation. They will also need to be prepared to take back people able to be discharged from acute hospital care to maintain capacity in the acute sector.

    Apart from older people in need there are also many people with long term conditions needing home based support services, which will become stressed during this crisis. There will be nursing and care staff sickness and already fragile support systems are at risk. As the retail sector starts to shut down and there is competition for scarce resources we need to be building in supply pathways for community based people with health and social care needs. Primary health care will need to find smart ways of providing medical and nursing support.

    1. The NHS

    In January and February when the gravity of the COVID pandemic was manifesting itself many of us were struck by the confident assertion that the NHS was well prepared. We know that the emergency plans will have been dusted down and the stockpile warehouses checked out. However, it now seems that there have not been the stress tests that you might have expected such as the supply and distribution of PPE equipment to both hospitals and community settings. The planning for COVID-19 testing also seems to have badly underestimated the need and we have been denied more accurate measures of community spread as well as the confirmation or otherwise of a definite case of COVID-19. This deficiency risks scarce NHS staff being quarantined at home for non COVID-19 symptoms.

    The 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic highlighted the need for critical care networks and more capacity in ITU provision with clear plans for surge capacity creating High Dependency Units (HDUs) including ability to use ventilators. The step-up and step-down facilities need bed capacity and adequate staffing. In addition, there is a need for clarity on referral pathways and ambulance transfer capability for those requiring even more specialised care such as Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO). The short window we now have needs to be used to sort some of these systems out and sadly the supply of critical equipment such as ventilators has not been addressed over the past 2 months. The Prime Minister at this point calls on F1 manufacturers to step in – we wasted 2 months.

    News of the private sector being drawn into the whole system is obviously good for adding beds, staff and equipment. The contracts need to be scrutinised in a more competent way than the Brexit cross channel ferries due diligence was, to ensure that the State and financially starved NHS is not disadvantaged. We prefer to see these changes as requisitioning private hospitals and contractors into the NHS. 

    1. Maintaining people’s standard of living

    We consider that the Chancellor has made some major steps toward ensuring that workers have some guarantees of sufficient income to maintain their health and wellbeing during this crisis. Clearly more work needs to be done to demonstrate that the self-employed and those on zero hours contracts are not more disadvantaged. The spotlight has shown that the levels of universal credit are quite inadequate to meet needs so now is the time to either introduce universal basic income or beef up the social security packages to provide a living wage. We also need to ensure that the homeless and rootless, those on the streets with chronic mental illness or substance misuse are catered for and we welcome the news that Sadiq Khan has requisitioned some hotels to provide hostel space. It has been good to see that the Trade Unions and TUC have been drawn into negotiations rather than ignored.

    In political terms we saw in 2008 that the State could nationalise high street banks. Now we see that the State can go much further and take over the commanding heights of the economy! Imagine if these announcements had been made, not by Rishi Sunak, but by John McDonnell! The media would have been in meltdown about the socialist take over!

    1. Conclusion

    At this stage of the pandemic we note with regret that the UK government did not act sooner to prepare for what is coming both in terms of public health measures as well as preparing the NHS and Local Government. It seems to the SHA that the government is playing catch up rather than being on the front foot. Many of the decisions have been rather late but we welcome the commitment to support the public health system, listen to independent voices in the scientific world through SAGE and to invest in the NHS. The country as a whole recognises the serious danger we are in and will help orchestrate the support and solidarity in the NHS and wider community. Perhaps a government of national unity should be created as we hear much of the WW2 experience. We need to have trust in the government to ensure that the people themselves benefit from these huge investment decisions.

    24th March 2020

    Comments Off on SHA COVID-19 Blog 2

    Boris Johnson’s Queen’s speech includes this statement:

    “New laws will be taken forward to help implement the National Health Service’s Long Term Plan in England.”


    A Camden New Journal article ‘Beware false prophets’ published last month, reports:

    “The most alarming feature of the Long Term Plan, however, is that it completely locks in the contracts on offer through the adoption of Integrated Care Partnerships (ICPs).

    “These ICPs are the planned outcome of NHS England’s Sustainability Transformation Plans and Accountable Care Organisations, and are non-state organisations with a single management structure. Included within them are hospitals as well as primary and commun­ity care services – and possibly social care too.

    “These giant five to 10 year multi-million-pound commercial contracts will be open to bidding, and they will not be subject to public scrutiny (information is routinely withheld on grounds of commercial confidentiality). This will open the way to bids from giant international health corporations that already run similar de-skilling of healthcare in the US and elsewhere.”

     

    Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour speech in Northampton is clear:

    “For a decade our NHS has been run down, carved up, and prepared for privatisation. A Labour government will reverse this. We’ll repeal the Tory-Lib Dem privatisation Act of 2012. We’ll give our NHS the resources, equipment and staff it needs. That means more GPs and nurses and reduced waiting times. And under Labour prescriptions in England will be free.

    “And we’ll make life-saving medicines available to all by ensuring Big Pharma can no longer hold our NHS to ransom. The prices pharmaceutical companies demand don’t reflect the costs of the drugs they make. They simply charge as much as they can get away with.

    “We’ll use compulsory licensing to secure generic versions of patented medicines and create a publicly-owned generic drugs manufacturer to supply cheaper medicines to our NHS, saving our health service money and saving lives.

    “Only Labour can be trusted with the future of our NHS.”


    Please see Mariana Mazzucato’s The Value of Everything, especially Chapter 7 “Extracting Value through the Innovation Economy”. It explains value extraction by Big Pharma.

    Comments Off on New laws to implement NHSE’s Long Term Plan

    This article was first published in the Camden New Journal under the title, Brexit, and spectre of NHS US sell-off, on 16 May 2019.

    There is much talk at the moment about the prospect of Brexit resulting in a trade deal with the US which will sell off our NHS to American private healthcare providers.

    This fear has also been expressed by Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth. [1] But it is critical to understand this “sell-off deal” has been under way for a long time and is fast gaining momentum, argue Susanna Mitchell and Roy Trevelion.

     

    The driver of the “sell-off deal” is Simon Stevens, who in 2014 was appointed head of NHS England, the body that controls all NHS spending. Before this, Stevens had been vice-president and CEO of the mammoth American healthcare corporation the UnitedHealth Group.

    Stevens has proceeded to “Americanise” the service through his subsequent NHS policy, based on a privatisation strategy he had outlined at the World Economic Forum at Davos in 2012. [2]

    From first to last, his NHS policy – the Five Year Forward View, the Sustainability and Transformation Plans and Accountable Care Organisations (renamed Integrated Care Programmes) that back it up, and now the 10-year Long Term Plan – have worked to import the US model into the UK.

    Unsurprisingly, the UnitedHealth Group will make major gains from this transformation. It is now the largest healthcare company in the world, with a 2018 revenue of $226.2 billion. It has many secondary companies that serve more than a hundred-million people globally. [3]

    Over the years it has been prosecuted for fraud and bad faith practices. This included limiting insurance payments to doctors, and not stating its true financial results in reports to shareholders. [4] [5]

    One of its fastest growing subsidiaries is Optum (formerly UnitedHealth UK). This is a leading information technology- enabled health services business. In February 2015, it was one of the commercial organisations approved by NHS England as “Lead Providers” to carry out the financial work of GPs.

    It is now firmly positioned in the system and ready to take away more public money. [6]

    The healthcare system in the United States is hugely more costly, and outstandingly less effective than that in the UK. In terms of funding and wellbeing, there is no rational argument for imposing it on our NHS. The only benefit it brings is increased profits for shareholders in the commercial healthcare sector.

    To take three examples, first comparing cost:

    On average, other wealthy developed countries spend about half as much per person on health as the US – in the US $10,224 compared to $4,246 in the UK. In 2017 the US federal government spent 7.9 per cent of GDP directly or indirectly on healthcare; however in total, taking into account private expenditure, the US spent a vast $3.5trillion or 18 per cent of GDP. This private sector spending is triple that of comparable countries. [7] [8]  This structure excludes many citizens from affordable health­care. Appallingly, one in four adults skipped a medical treatment in 2017 due to an inability to pay. [9]

    Secondly, from the point of view of efficacy and wellbeing, statistics are also devastating. The US has the lowest life expectancy at birth among comparable countries (US 78.6, UK 81.2). Statistics show that life expectancy for both men and women has increased more slowly in the US. It comes 12th in the global life expectancy table. [10]

    Thirdly, the US maternal mortality rate is truly shocking. It stands at 26.4 per 100,000 live births, the worst among all developed countries. [11]

    In the UK the rate stands at 9.2 per 100,000. [12] [13]

    Deaths for African-American women are three to four times higher than for white women. [14]

    The infant mortality rate is also worse. The US rate is 5.79 deaths per 1,000 live births. [15]  The UK rate is 3.8 deaths per 1,000 live births. [16]

    It is clear that if we follow the American model of healthcare it can only reduce wellbeing in the UK. Simon Stevens’ “sell-off deal” simply increases the wealth of global corporations (such as the Mayo Clinic, which has recently opened in London [17]).

    It is time that this fact was “called out” loudly and clearly. All possible measures must be taken to prevent the continuing imposition of this ineffec­tive and costly system.

    Susanna Mitchell and Roy Trevelion are members of the Socialist Health Association.
    References, some links, live at the time of writing, may not have been maintained:
    [1] BBC Question Time 25.04.2019  at 47.21 ff  https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0004hkk/question-time-2019-25042019 .
    [2] https://www.sochealth.co.uk/2017/05/25/truth-stps-simon-stevens-imposed-reorganisation-designed-transnational-capitalism-englands-nhs-stewart-player/
    [3] http://selloff.org.uk/nhs/CVforSimonStevens260516.pdf
    [4] https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-302.htm
    [5] https://law.freeadvice.com/insurance_law/insurers_bad_faith/unitedhealth-pays-400-million-in-bad-faith-claim.htm
    [6] http://selloff.org.uk/nhs/CVforSimonStevens260516.pdf
    [7] https://www.crfb.org/papers/american-health-care-health-spending-and-federal-budget
    [8] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends
    [9] https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2017-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201805.pdf
    [10] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-life-expectancy-compare-countries/#item-le_the-u-s-has-the-lowest-life-expectancy-at-birth-among-comparable-countries_2019
    [11] https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world?t=1560004210914
    [12] https://vizhub.healthdata.org/sdg/
    [13] http://digg.com/2017/uk-birth-us-safety-comparison
    [14] https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/elizabeth-warren-black-maternal-mortality_n_5cc0e93fe4b0ad77ff7f717b?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACQmWXh6QTnSJI5sjLN1KEdQCuSnVb__LEQLJAyEiK2PZwqnVABYxo500JrU24NHWCooflTZAia50H4OJ-YzSPMUqXyGODWHMGcBXUxhfVY-fau-ViM-Ly9n32SQ1vXD-SGhWXohZRVo2givDSEbM1D3TVs38R5MjmfY_5rGZXuP&guccounter=2
    [15] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/deaths.htm
    [16]https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/childhoodinfantandperinatalmortalityinenglandandwales/2016
    [17] https://www.medcitybeat.com/news-blog/2019/mayo-clinic-oxford-university-clinic-partnershiphttps://www.medcitybeat.com/news-blog/2019/mayo-clinic-oxford-university-clinic-partnership.

     

     

    1 Comment

    The following article was first published in the Camden New Journal on 06 December, 2018

    A private company being promoted
    by government to recruit patients to its doctor service spells ruin for the whole-person integrated care we need from the NHS, argue
    Susanna Mitchell and Roy Trevelion

    The sneaking privatisation of our National Health Service now aggressively threatens our GPs. In Camden and across London, we all need to be aware of the long-term harms this development will cause GPs and primary care NHS services.

    Last year, a global multinational corporation called Babylon Healthcare – owned by a former Goldman Sachs investment banker and Circle Health CEO – established a “digital- first” business called “GP at Hand”.

    Disastrously for the NHS, Babylon Healthcare Services Ltd can be traced back to a holding company in Jersey, the offshore tax haven.

    GP at Hand is contactable through a mobile app which uses standard calculations as a symptom checker. Unfortunately NHS England have not provided our existing practices with this software.

    Instead any patient registering with this commercial enterprise will be deregistered from their normal GPs. And, although the GPs employed by the company can also be accessed by video or phone, this process delivers no continuity of care or whole-patient assessment.

    Continuity of care is a cornerstone of general practices. However, Matt Hancock, the health secretary says, “If we need to change the rules to work with the new technology then change the rules we must.”

    In addition GP at Hand’s own promotion material actively discourages older people from registering. Explicitly these are those who are frail or living with dementia, or in need of end-of-life care. Pregnant women and those it describes as having complex social physical and psychological needs are also discouraged from signing up.

    In other words it is “cherry-picking” young and healthy patients who will be more profitable to its shareholders. Its use of standard practice via information technology, and the easy access it offers, is particularly attractive to the young.

    Of the 31,519 new patients who have signed up with GP at Hand over the past 12 months, 87 per cent are aged between 20 and 39 years, while patients over 65 now make up just 1 per cent of the population registered with the service.

    All this poses serious problems both for patients and general practices. In the first place, our present primary care system consists of GP practices committed to whole-person and integrated care for everyone in their local communities. Healthcare services are organised around geographic areas to enable better co-ordination with hospitals and social services.

    In contrast to this, GP at Hand fractures this fair and impartial community-based model, registering patients who live or work anywhere within 35 to 40 minutes of one of the clinics. In addition, should any of their patients require more complex care, they will no longer have their own GP to turn to.

    Secondly, by picking the most profitable patients, GP at Hand drains money away from ordinary GP surgeries. Normal GPs are funded according to the number of people on their patient list and this funding is combined into a single budget to provide the services they offer. This means that funding from the roughly 80 per cent of patients who remain reasonably well helps to pay for the 20 per cent who are elderly, who are chronically sick, or have multiple illnesses.

    But if the “capitation fee” of the young and healthy is scooped up by a for-profit company like GP at Hand, it will critically undermine the funding available to surgeries. This will leave practices to deal with the sick, the frail and the old on a much reduced budget.

    Shockingly this commercial entity is funded by NHS England. It can be commissioned through our clinical commissioning groups (CCGs).

    It’s expanding fast, and already has over 35,000 patients. Currently the corporation operates out of five clinical locations in London including one in King’s Cross. Plans for rolling it out nationwide are under discussion. It is also advertised widely, with the health secretary Matt Hancock recently announcing that he has registered with the company.

    Future developments in information technology and artificial intelligence that can be useful to our public health systems should be funded directly towards our existing GP surgeries.

    It should not be used as a vehicle for profit-making by private corporations at the expense of our NHS.
    We need to make the dangers of adopting this business model clear to the widest possible public. We must encourage those who care about our publicly-funded NHS to boycott Babylon’s GP at Hand.

    We need to bring public pressure to bear and end this attack on a valued and trusted institution that serves us all.

    The NHS has always been for the benefit of everybody. It must be kept that way.

    • Susanna Mitchell and Roy Trevelion are members of the Holborn & St Pancras Labour Party and of the Socialist Health Association.

    2 Comments

    Nick Bostock reports at GPonline that:

    Under-pressure GPs are delivering ‘remarkable outcomes’ on cancer

    You can read the complete article here. Nick reports:

    GPs ‘can take a lot of credit’ for marked improvements in early cancer diagnosis and reductions in the proportion of cases detected as an emergency, according to a cancer expert.

    In the year to March 2018, the proportion of cancer patients who first presented at hospital as an emergency fell to 18.8% – down from 21% in the year to December 2012.

    Over roughly the same period, cancers detected at an early stage increased significantly – rising from 46% in 2013 to 52% by mid-2017, according to figures from the National Cancer Intelligence Network (NCIN).

    However: GPonline reported earlier this year on research showing that GPs were as good as consultants at making appropriate use of cancer diagnostic tests – and yet pledges to give GPs direct access to four key diagnostic tests – blood tests, chest X-ray, ultrasound and endoscopy – have not been delivered in many areas.

    Isn’t it about time that GPs were also given access to the new technology for GP consultations via mobile and Skype? This is currently being ‘rolled out’ by GP at Hand. Here’s a transcript of the R4 Today programme 13 September at 6 mins to 9:00 am (I made this transcript and I believe it’s a fairly accurate job – but any mistakes are mine):

    (Int) Interviewer

    AP (Ali Parsa, CEO Babylon – parent company that runs GP at Hand)

    RV (Dr Richard Vautrey, Chair GP Committee, British Medical Association)

    SoS = Secretary of State

     

    (Int): So Ali Parsa just explain to us how your App works.

    (AP): So, we have a very simple service. So, what it does is allow patients to check their symptoms whenever they want. To make an appointment with a doctor within seconds, to be able to see a doctor within minutes. In fact, I was just checking my App and it says that if I want to see a doctor I can see one at 9 o’clock today, in the next few minutes.

    (Int): You mean ‘see’ over the phone?

    (AP): Over the phone. And if you want to see somebody physically then, you can go see them that very same day. It is open 24hrs a day, 365 days of the year. And it is available for the same price the National Health Service pays any other GP. What we have done is to solve the problem of accessibility and the continuity of healthcare – using technology and what the SoS and the NHS is doing today is celebrating that and promising it for the whole country.

    (Int): And Richard Vautrey, this is something which patients complain about again and again, isn’t it, access to their GP, so is this kind of App the solution?

    (RV): We have real concerns, as well as patients do, about the inability of many practices to be able to offer enough appointments and that’s simply because we haven’t had the funding over the last decade to support the expansion of the health service to be able to meet the growing needs of our patients. What General Practices are doing right now is seeing thousands and thousands – if not a million – patients today offering, you know, face-to-face consultations and seeing them in their surgeries, so that’s when patients approach them today. So that’s happening right now. What we haven’t got is the resources to be able to offer some of the IT technologies in every single practice. And the SoS’s commitment to IT is welcome, but we need to see that commitment translated into resources provided to enable every practice to offer this type of consultation.

    (Int): But could this kind of technological approach actually help some of the pressure on GPs because people would consult a doctor over the phone rather than going to the surgery.

    (AP): Well many practices, if not most practices, already offer telephone consultations. What they haven’t got is the IT kit to be able to offer smart phone consultations, or Skype-phone computer consultations, any many would like to be able to do that, if the technology was provided to them. But the other big difference is that every Practice that is open today will see any and every patient who lives within their area, and we have concerns about the model of which GP Hand has been built, which is primarily about looking at some of the relatively mobile healthy patients and not accepting every single patient who lives within their area.

    (AP): I’m afraid Richard that is simply factually not true. We will ask when patients started the service, to ask patients to seek advice if they want to change their GP Practice to our Practice, if they have any clinical issues. Most patients seek advice and join us – we look after them, young, old, sick, healthy, our patients are across the border, and we don’t do that just in Britain, remember we look after one third of the population in Rwanda, and we do so in the United States, we do this in Canada. . .

    (Int): But specifically, on this idea of whether you cherry pick patients, it’s likely that patients who don’t have very serious health problems, and maybe younger, are more likely to want to use an App on their mobile.

    (AP) . . . but, why is that? If the patient is not very mobile, if the patient is very old, if the patient can’t wait a few weeks to see their GP, they’re significantly more likely to use a service that is continuously available. Many of our patients have mental health issues – they can’t wait for a few days or a few weeks to see their GP. That’s why they switch to us. A thousand patients today will choose to apply to GP at Hand, and then switch their GP Practice – one every three minutes.

    (Int): Richard Vautrey, some GP Practices are worried about the fact that if their patients sign up to GP at Hand they then lose that funding, don’t they?

    (RV): That’s exactly right. And the way that General Practice is funded at the moment is a balanced mechanism, so those patients who use the service less, and there are many patients that use the service more, and that overall, that compensates one for another. What we have concerns about is that this would effectively replace a personal service with an anonymous call centre and patients don’t want that.

    (Int): And finally, Ali Parsa, this was something that commissioning groups in Birmingham were worried about and that was clinical safety – isn’t it better to see a doctor the next day.

    (AP): No, it wasn’t clinical safety, you do see a doctor, not a call centre, face-to-face on your mobile and then see one in one of our surgeries. We will open up across the country physical surgeries, their issue was not that. It was an IT hitch that doesn’t allow its screening to be done with your local hospital and that IT hitch has been fixed. This is the future, and I encourage more and more patients to join it.

    (Int): Okay thank you both, we’ll leave it there, let us know what your think via twitter.

    Comments Off on Under-pressure GPs are delivering ‘remarkable outcomes’ on cancer

    Surveys of members of the British Association of Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) and the British HIV Association (BHIVA) provide new evidence of pressure on over stretched sexual health services and a sector at ‘breaking point’

     

    Access to sexual health and HIV services has been dramatically reduced as a result of changes to the funding and organisation of sexual health services since 2013, according to the medical professionals providing care. Over half (54%) of respondents to a survey of members of the British Association of Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) reported decreases in the overall level of service access to patients over the past year, with a further 16 per cent saying that access had significantly decreased. In a parallel survey of members of the British HIV Association (BHIVA), three quarters (76%) of respondents said that care delivered to patients in their HIV service had worsened.

    With Public Health England (PHE) data showing a 13 per cent increase in attendance of sexual health services between 2013 and 2017 (PHE, June 2018,) it is not surprising that nearly 80 per cent of BASHH respondents (79%) said that they had seen an increased demand for services in the past 12 months. Budgetary pressure means that this demand cannot always be met: more patients are now either turned away or redirected to other parts of the health system.  Six in ten (63%) per cent of BASHH respondents said that they had to turn away patients each week, with 19 per cent saying that they were having to turn away more than 50 patients on a weekly basis. While most were offered the next available appointment, 13 per cent said that patients were referred to another sexual health provider and four per cent that they were redirected to primary care. Clinicians responding to the survey report that many of the patients who are being turned away have symptoms of potential infection.

     

    Reduction in prevention, cytology and mental health services

    Both surveys revealed significant reductions in services such as the delivery of HIV prevention activities, outreach to vulnerable populations, cervical cytology and psychosexual health services. Three quarters of BHIVA members (75%) said that there had been an impact on access to HIV prevention advice and condoms, with 63 per cent saying access had been reduced; 44 per cent of BASHH members said that HIV prevention services had decreased. Almost half (47%) of BASHH members reported reductions in the provision of cervical cytology functions, reflected by BHIVA members, who also said that cervical screening had been halved (reduced access reported by 49.5%).  This is of particular concern in the context of a fall in national cervical screening coverage and the higher risk of HPV related cancer in women with HIV.

    More than 40 per cent (42%) of BASHH respondents reported reduced provision of psychosexual health care, mirrored by a similar number (41%) of BHIVA members, who said that access to psychology input for HIV related mental health problems had been reduced. This is despite the higher risk of mental health issues the HIV population faces. Nearly half of BASHH members (47%) also said that care for vulnerable populations had reduced.

     

    STI screening and HIV testing

    More than 40 per cent (41%) of BHIVA members said that access to sexual health screening had been reduced, despite HIV positive people being at greater overall risk of sexually transmitted infections.  BASHH members gave a mixed response, with 29 per cent of respondents reporting reductions in STI testing in the past year and 27 per cent increased testing.  The BASHH response regarding HIV testing was similarly mixed, with 21 per cent saying there was a decrease and 26 per cent an increase.

    The BHIVA survey showed that it is becoming more difficult for people to test for HIV, with 35 per cent of respondents reporting that there is now reduced access to testing in their own location.  Although 58 per cent of services offered outreach testing, with a quarter of respondents (26%) saying that it was offered locally in another service, more than half (52%) said access to testing in outreach settings was also reduced.  Almost half (47%) of BASHH respondents reported increases in access to online testing in the last 12 months, but it is not yet available in all locations. Although some respondents were optimistic about its role in helping to manage the growing demand for services, others expressed concerns about poor implementation, and suggested it was taking the focus away from face-to-face services.

    Funding cuts have also drastically reduced the output of third sector organisations, such as charities and community groups, who have traditionally helped to plug gaps in services with HIV testing, advice and peer support. Nearly 40 per cent of BHIVA respondents said that peer support was no longer offered by their service, with 28 per cent of those that still do saying access to it had been reduced. 70 per cent said that overall the remaining third sector support had worsened, with services stripped back to basics or simply closed down completely.

     

    PrEP availability and reproductive health

    The roll-out of the PrEP programme through the IMPACT trial has led to increased availability.   Over 70 per cent (71%) of BHIVA respondents said that PrEP is now either available from their service or offered locally by another service (17%) and over 70 per cent (74%) of BASHH respondents reported increased delivery. However, provision remains mixed with 28 per cent of BHIVA respondents saying access is improving, 25 per cent saying it had been reduced, and 11 per cent saying PrEP was not currently on offer locally.

    At the same time almost a third (32%) of BASHH respondents reported decreased provision of reproductive health and contraception and a similar percentage (34%) of BHIVA respondents also reported reduced access to these services.

     

    Impact of separation of HIV and GUM on staff and services

    Changes since 2013 have in many areas led to previously fully integrated clinics that were able to provide a range of services from a single location now being divided between differently funded suppliers.  Patients, particularly people living with HIV, may not be willing or able to travel elsewhere and staff may not be able to access records from other services.

    Funding cuts have led to staff not being replaced with a knock-on effect to those remaining and to the level of service they can offer. For example, the loss of Health Advisers and nursing staff can limit support for patients.  More than a quarter (27%) of BHIVA respondents reported that access to partner notification has been affected, yet this is a key method of increasing testing of people at a higher risk of HIV transmission.  Although the majority of services (64%) still maintain counselling for the newly diagnosed, close to 30 per cent said that access is reduced.

    Staff morale has been affected, with more than 80 per cent (81%) of BASHH survey respondents saying that staff morale had decreased in the last year, with almost half (49%) reporting it had greatly decreased.  Respondents to both surveys cited the damaging impact sustained budget cuts were having on staff, as well as the pressures and stresses experienced by retendering, restructuring and the loss of experienced colleagues. Some describe the situation as being “at breaking point” and nearly all are worried about the future:  more than 90 per cent (92%) of BASHH respondents said that they were worried, or extremely worried, about the future delivery of sexual health care in England.

     

    Commented BASHH President, Dr Olwen Williams: “Providing high-quality free and open-access care for all those that need it has been the bedrock of sexual health in this country for over a century. Whilst we are doing our utmost to maintain standards in the face of record demand and dramatic increases in infections, such as syphilis and gonorrhoea in recent years, these surveys clearly show that continued cuts to funding are taking their toll. Current levels of sexual health funding are quite simply not sustainable and the pressures they are generating are having a seriously detrimental impact on the morale and wellbeing of staff. Without increased support to match the huge growth in demand, the consequences will likely be disastrous for individuals and our public health as a whole.”

    Added BHIVA Chair, Professor Chloe Orkin:“Despite the stated ambition of policy makers to reduce health inequalities this will not be possible without robustly funded, sustainable services. Our survey results provide clear evidence that we need to upgrade, not reduce, services if we are to support and protect vulnerable populations. We have made huge strides in the control of HIV, so it is particularly worrying to see that important aspects of HIV care, such as access to prevention services, testing and mental health support, have been reduced. Public Health England (PHE) figures show a 17 per cent fall in new diagnoses, which it attributes to large increases in HIV testing (PHE, September 2018.) It therefore makes no sense to make it more difficult for people to test, as shown by the reduced access to testing in clinics and outreach locations our members report.”

    ENDS

    Editor’s notes:

    1. Survey responses: The BASHH and BHIVA surveys were both conducted in August and September 2018. BASHH received 291 responses in total, of which 264 respondents were based in England. This press release summarises the responses provided by those members based in England.  BHIVA received 98 responses to the survey, 97 of which were from respondents based in England, which are summarised in this press release.
    2. The British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH)is the lead professional representative body for those managing sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV in the UK. It has a prime role in education and training, in determining, monitoring and maintaining standards of governance in sexual health and HIV care. BASHH also works to further the advancement of public health in relation to STIs, HIV and other sexual health problems and acts as a champion in promoting good sexual health and providing education to the public.
    3. The British HIV Association (BHIVA)is the leading UK association representing professionals in HIV care. Since 1995, it has been committed to providing excellent care for people living with and affected by HIV. BHIVA is a national advisory body on all aspects of HIV care and provides a national platform for HIV care issues. Its representatives contribute to international, national and local committees dealing with HIV care. It promotes undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing medical education within HIV care.

    For further information, please contact either: Simon Whalley, BASHH on 07506 723 324 or simon.whalley@mandfhealth.com or Jo Josh, BHIVA, on 07787 530 922 or jo@commsbiz.com.

    Comments Off on Government funding cuts leave sexual health and HIV care at ‘breaking point’

    Following the Judicial Review in London in July, NHS England quietly launched its promised public consultation on the Integrated Care Provider (ICP) Contracts on 4 August. The consultation closes on 26 October.  If the appeal granted at the other Judicial Review called for by 999 Call for the NHS in Leeds is successful, this ICP contract may yet be unlawful, but it is nonetheless essential that we respond to the feedback.

    The ICP consultation document is a daunting read for most of the public. However, Health Campaigns Together (HCT) has provided expert answers to all 12 points in the public feedback document. 

    HCT’s aim in providing these answers is to prevent flawed plans being adopted. They are seeking to prevent long-term contracts being signed that will undermine our NHS. This is in order to preserve any hopes of achieving a genuine integration of health and social care as public services, publicly provided free at point of use – and publicly accountable.

     

    A reminder on what’s happened so far: There have been two judicial reviews on the Accountable Care Organisations and these Integrated Care Provider (ACO/ICP) contracts. And the courts found in favour of the NHS. But one of the campaign groups, 999 Call for the NHS, has now been granted permission to appeal. 

    This is some very good news. But it also means NHS England is consulting on an ACO/ICP contract that may be unlawful. 

    NHS England knew full well that an appeal was a possibility. Although fully aware of this, on Friday 3rd August – the day Parliament and the Courts went on holiday – NHS England started a public consultation on the ACO/ICP contract. The consultation says that the Judicial Reviews had ruled in their favour. This consultation runs until 26 Oct.

     

    We all know that this ICP consultation needs to be combatted and stopped. But in the meantime, here’s all the information you need to fill in the consultation feedback.

    As stated, the judge in the London NHS Judicial Review said that the ACOs (now ICPs) should not be enacted until a lawfully conducted consultation was held, and any eventual ICP contract would have to be lawfully entered into.

    Since then, NHS England have moved swiftly and stealthily into gear, and you will find their monstrous ICP ‘consultation’ document at this link.

    And here is Health Campaigns Together on the subject at this link.

    As you see, the consultation document includes 12 points for feedback and Health Campaigns together has provided suggested responses to these points – very good responses too, I think. You’ll find them at this link.

    When you’re ready here is the direct link for public feedback to the document, just copy and paste from the Health Campaigns Together link above.

    As stated, there is a move afoot to get the consultation suspended until after the appeal granted to the 999 for the NHS has been concluded, but it’s very important to counter what will definitely be lots of responses from the allies of NHS England. Otherwise they will be able to hail the result as a democratic mandate.

    Health Campaigns Together say that it is OK to copy and paste HCT’s responses into the feedback boxes on the questionnaire, although if possible, it would be good if respondents could add a few tweaks of their own.

    Comments Off on Consultation survey for the NHS England Integrated Care Provider Contracts – all answers are here

     Court of Appeal grants NHS campaign group permission to appeal against NHS England’s new Integrated Care Provider contract

    Some very good news – which also means NHS England is consulting on an ACO contract that may be unlawful.

    They knew full well that was a possibility, despite their protestations in the consultation document that both Judicial Reviews had ruled in their favour.

    (They have rebranded the ACO contract the Integrated Care Provider contract and their consultation runs until 26 Oct.)

    We shall be putting out more info shortly about this.

     

    The Court of Appeal has issued an order granting campaign group 999 Call for the NHS permission to appeal the ruling against their Judicial Review of the proposed payment mechanism in NHS England’s Accountable Care Organisation contract.

    The Accountable Care Organisation Contract (now rebranded by NHS England as the Integrated Care Provider contract) proposes that healthcare providers are not paid per treatment, but by a ‘Whole Population Annual Payment’, which is a set amount for the provision of named services during a defined period. This, 999 Call for the NHS argues, unlawfully shifts the risk of there being an underestimate of patient numbers from the commissioner to the provider, and endangers service standards.

    In April, the High Court ruled against the campaign group’s legal challenge to NHS England’s Accountable Care Organisation contract – but the group and their solicitors at Leigh Day and barristers at Landmark Chambers found the ruling so flawed that they immediately applied for permission to appeal.

    Although fully aware of this, on Friday 3rd August – the day Parliament and the Courts went on holiday – NHS England started a public consultation on the Accountable Care Organisation contract – now renamed the Integrated Provider Organisation contract.

    The consultation document asserts that the payment mechanism in the ACO/ICP contract is lawful, because:

    “The High Court has now decided the two judicial reviews in NHS England’s favour.”

    Steve Carne, speaking for 999 Call for the NHS, said

    “It beggars belief that NHS England is consulting on a contract that may not even be lawful.

    And a lot of public funds is being spent on developing the ACO model – including on the public consultation.

    We are very pleased that 3 judges from the Court of Appeal will have time to consider the issues properly.

    We shall shortly issue our stage 5 Crowd Justice appeal for £18k to cover the costs of the Appeal.

    We are so grateful to all the campaigners and members of the public who have made it possible for us to challenge the lawfulness of NHS England’s attempt to shoehorn the NHS into an imitation of the USA’s Medicare/Medicaid system.

    We will not see our NHS reduced to limited state-funded health care for people who can’t afford private health insurance.”

    Jo Land, one of the original Darlo Mums when 999 Call for the NHS led the People’s March for the NHS from Jarrow to London, added,

    “All along we have been warning about the shrinkage of the NHS into a service that betrays the core principle of #NHS4All – a health service that provides the full range of appropriate health care to everyone with a clinical need for it, free at the point of use.

    Since we first started work two years ago on bringing this judicial review, there have been more and more examples of restrictions and denials of NHS care, and the consequent growth of a two tier system – private for those who can afford it, and an increasingly limited NHS for the rest of us.”

    Jenny Shepherd said

    “NHS England’s rebranded Accountable Care Organisation contract consultation is a specious attempt to meet the requirement to consult on a significant change to NHS and social care services.

    We don’t support the marketisation of the NHS that created the purchaser/provider split and requires contracts for the purchase and provision of services.

    Integration of NHS and social care services, in order to provide a more straightforward process for patients with multiple ailments, is not aided by a system that essentially continues NHS fragmentation.

    This new proposed contract is a complex lead provider contract that creates confusion over the respective roles of commissioner and provider. It requires multiple subcontracts that are likely to need constant wasteful renegotiation and change over the duration of the lead provider contract. This is just another form of fragmentation, waste and dysfunctionality.

    The way to integrate the NHS and social care is through legislation to abolish the purchaser/provider split and contracting; put social care on the same footing as the NHS as a fully publicly funded and provided service that is free at the point of use; and remove the market and non-NHS bodies from the NHS.

    Such legislation already exists in the shape of the NHS Reinstatement Bill.”

    The campaign team say they are determined in renewing the fight to stop and reverse Accountable Care. Whether rebranded as Integrated Care or not, they see evidence that it is the same attempt to shoehorn the NHS into a limited role in a two tier healthcare system that feeds the interests of profiteering private companies.

    Steven Carne emphasised,

    “It is vital that we defend the core NHS principle of providing the full range of appropriate treatments to everyone with a clinical need for them.”

    999 Call for the NHS hope the 2 day appeal in London will happen before the end of the year. The Appeal will consider all seven grounds laid out in the campaign group’s application – with capped costs.

    Details on the first instance judgment can be found here, and the judgment itself here.
    David Lock QC and Leon Glenister represent 999 Call for the NHS, instructed by Rowan Smith and Anna Dews at Leigh Day.

    Comments Off on appeal against NHS England’s new Integrated Care Provider contract: by Jenny

    This article was first published at HIV i-Base on 25 April 2018.

    The revised BHIVA Standards of Care for people living with HIV are primarily produced as a reference for commissioning HIV services. It also describes a minimum standard of care that HIV positive people can use as a reference.

    These 90-page guidelines were last updated in 2013 and this third edition was launched at the 4th Joint BHIVA/BASHH Conference in Edinburgh.

    The Standards was produced by a writing group of more than 90 individual doctors, health workers and people living with HIV. It was a collaboration with numerous professional associations, commissioners and community groups.

    The main changes to this edition include:

    • Reducing the number of standards from 12 to 8, but with each one covering broader themes.
    • A new section is included on person-centred care. This includes wider aspects of social circumstances, including stigma and discrimination, self-management, peer support and general well-being. The importance of these issues are emphasised by this being an early chapter.
    • Recognising the new U=U consensus: an undetectable viral load means HIV cannot be sexually transmitted – with or without a condom (although some sections of the document have inconsistent information on U=U that will hopefully be quickly updated).
    • The section on complex care has been broadened with more detail about access to specialist non-HIV treatment.
    • Another new section covers HIV across the life course covers HIV treatment and care from adolescence to end of life. This includes palliative care in the context that ART might continue to work well to the very end of life.

    There are now eight chapters covering major themes. Each chapter and subsection includes quality statements and auditable targets.

    Standard 1 covers testing, diagnosis and prevention and the 90:90:90 goals to eradicate HIV. All three areas are ways to maintain and develop combination prevention. This includes increased testing, early treatment, viral suppression and PrEP. Combination prevention helped bring about the dramatic reduction in HIV transmission seen recently in the UK. HIV positive people are important partners in combination prevention.

    Standard 2 is about person-centred care. This has been described as “the fourth 90” and focusses on the whole person, not just HIV. BHIVA say it considers, “desires, values, family situations, social circumstances, and lifestyles. And in so doing, the needs and preferences of HIV positive people can be responded to in humane and holistic ways.” It challenges HIV stigma and discrimination and works towards equality in health and social care. Social inclusion and well-being – crucially aided by peer support – are key to person-centred care.

    Standard 3 covers HIV outpatient care and treatment. Anyone newly diagnosed must be seen by a specialist HIV doctor within two weeks and given access to psychological and peer support. In some cases this referral needs to be within 24 hours. There is no gold standard for measuring engagement in care, but transfer of care should be seamless whether a person moves home, is incarcerated or simply moves to another clinic. Increasing numbers of children living with HIV from birth are now becoming adolescents. Management by interdisciplinary teams must ensure successful transition to adult HIV services. A qualified doctor must prescribe ARVs and monitoring according to current national guidelines.

    Standard 4 is about complex HIV care. Inpatient care must ensure that an HIV specialist is included in the hospital multidisciplinary team. HIV positive people are living longer and often go into hospital for non-HIV related problems. They may be cared for safely and appropriately in a local ward or clinic. But they must also be supported by immediate and continued HIV expertise and advice. HIV positive people must have access to specialist services for other conditions such as cancer. But clear protocols and agreed pathways are essential for safe delivery of services. This section also includes supporting people with higher levels of need. It includes successful management of multiple long-term conditions, poor mental health, poor sexual health, and problems with alcohol or substance use.

    Standard 5 is on sexual and reproductive health. It is important that HIV positive people are supported in maintaining healthy sexual lives for themselves and their partners. In addition, anyone at risk of other STIs and infectious hepatitis, perhaps through drug use, should be supported and given advice. Care should be given for contraception, fertility services, pregnancy planning, and access to abortion services. Care must ensure that babies are born healthy and HIV negative. Care for the mother’s health is key to giving birth to a healthy baby.

    Standard 6 is on psychological care. HIV positive people should receive care and support that assesses, manages and promotes their emotional, mental and cognitive wellbeing and health. This should be sensitive to the unique aspects of living with HIV. HIV positive people have higher rates of depression, anxiety, addictions, self harm, and other mental health issues than the general population. Mental health needs must be screened on an annual basis. This includes screening for poor cognitive function that can cause memory problems and reduce ability to perform simple tasks.

    Standard 7 covers HIV across the life course. This section looks at standards of care for everyone who is HIV positive. Management of ART should be individualised at every age. It starts with adolescents (aged 10 to 19 years) and young adults (aged 20 to 24 years). Education and personal development – as well as achieving healthy sex lives and relationships – should be supported by experienced sexual health advisers and specialist nurses.

    The years from 25 to 65 are described as early to middle adulthood. Most people in this age group are diagnosed as adults. Care for early diagnosis and treatment should include peer support as well as psychological support. HIV positive people should be supported in having healthy and fulfilling sex lives and engaged in treatment as prevention (U=U).

    The over 65s – whether newly diagnosed or long-time positive – should be given access to treatment for complex comorbidities. This is an area of significant emerging knowledge and will likely develop over the course of these standards. Successful care may be achieved through co-speciality clinics, mentoring schemes, or by identified experts in advice and guidance. Palliative care is now included here. Palliative care ensures that the individual and their family are supported, receive appropriate care that meets their needs and preferences, and do not experience unnecessary suffering

    Standard 8 covers developing and maintaining excellent care. This standard covers knowledge and training to ensure specialist services are provided. It sets standards for monitoring, auditing, research and commissioning. It also sets standards for public health surveillance, confidentiality and information governance.

    Roy Trevelion was a community representative on the Standards writing group.

    COMMENT

    These comprehensive Standards are very welcome.

    The community was involved at every stage from planning to the final draft, with at least one community representative on each chapter and more than 15 UK-CAB members collaborating overall.

    The result is a comprehensive benchmark for health and wellbeing for HIV positive people.

    All sections provide bullet points for measurable and auditable outcomes and must be promoted in primary and secondary care, health & social care, public health, and local authority healthcare provision.

    As bureaucratic and structural changes affect the structure of HIV services, these Standards should be a reference for ensuring that high-quality care for HIV positive people is maintained.

    The inconsistent messaging over undetectable viral load and HIV transmission will hopefully be corrected. As the publication is only available in PDF format, this should be relatively easy. Several formatting problems, including difficult legibility (light font, justified text) would benefit from being revised. 

    It is good to see the inclusion of HIV positive people in the photographs throughout the report, supported by the UK-CAB and Positively UK.

    Reference

    BHIVA. British HIV Association Standards of care for people living with HIV 2018. April 2018.
    http://www.bhiva.org/standards-of-care-2018.aspx

    Comments Off on A new framework for best HIV care: BHIVA Standards of Care revised and updated (2018)