Blog

  • Categories
  • Category Archives: Privatisation

    On the third anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire, the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) has said firefighters will not accept another year of inaction on building safety.

    The FBU has called for an end to “a politics that values profit over people”, condemning “endless promises, excuses, and platitudes” from government.

    Matt Wrack, FBU general secretary, said:

    “Firefighters do all that they can to protect human life and the loss of 72 people at Grenfell was deeply traumatic for them as well as for all those others directly affected by the fire. Today, a community and their firefighters grieve. But we will not accept another year of inaction.

    “Three years on, we have heard endless promises, excuses, and platitudes from government, but the reality on the ground has not changed.

    “Half a million of people are trapped in unsafe homes and across the country another Grenfell could happen tomorrow, potentially where fire services are not as well resourced. Every day that the government fails to tackle the building safety crisis is another day that residents’ lives are being put at risk.

    “While the world has faced up to the coronavirus pandemic, the inquiry into the Grenfell atrocity has been put on hold, giving the companies and politicians responsible more time still to avoid scrutiny.

    “It was decades of deregulation, privatisation, and austerity that allowed Grenfell to take place, with a politics that values profit over people. When the economy restarts, we must not fall prey to the failed arguments of the past that led to this horrendous loss of life. “

    Joe Karp-Sawey, FBU communications officer

    Leave a comment
    Proposals to create a new super NHS laboratory in the northwest by closing local sites while 200 biomedical scientists are busy testing for Covid-19 will create delays in processing samples, Unite, Britain and Ireland’s largest union, warned today (Thursday 7 May).
    Unite said the plans by Lancashire and South Cumbria Central Laboratories Partnership to merge the labs at Blackburn, Blackpool, Lancaster and Preston into one super lab at a yet–to-be identified site would mean delays in testing samples which would have a detrimental impact on the estimated 500,000 people the super lab would serve.
    Unite, which has 100,000 members in the health service, accused NHS bosses of using the coronavirus emergency to push through this already rejected merger plan ‘under the radar’ when other similar collaborations, such as at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, have postponed all further plans until the Covid-19 crisis has passed.
    Unite said the plans were ‘a stab in the back’ for the biomedical scientists currently working at full stretch to process lab samples, including those for Covid-19, who have not got the time to examine the plan.
    Merger plans for a super lab at Lancaster, covering the areas of five NHS trusts, were rejected last year as it would make the service too remote from local GPs and hospitals, and increase processing times from the current 24-to-48 hours.
    In a letter to the partnership, Unite regional officer Keith Hutson said: “Unite finds it totally unacceptable that during the Covid 19 crisis you have seized upon this opportunity to force through merger plans and exclude the participation of Unite, the main representative of laboratory workers for this project.
    “Unite calls upon this project to cease until the Covid-19 crisis has ended.  I can say that apart from the despicable manner the trusts have chosen to progress this matter, be aware that when it is appropriate Unite, if necessary, will move to immediately ballot its members for industrial action.”
    Commenting Keith Hutson added: “NHS bosses are using the pandemic to reintroduce this flawed plan under the radar which will increase the times for processing samples. Our members who have given their all during this crisis feel the deliberate lack of consultation is a stab in the back.
    “We are going to involve the region’s MPs in this campaign, including The Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, MP for Chorley, as, in the long-term, we fear that any super lab could be ripe for being sold off to a profit-hungry healthcare company.
    “If one thing has become clear during the last two months, it is that the British public respect and deeply value the NHS and its staff – and don’t want to see it being salami-sliced and privatised.”
    Twitter: @unitetheunion Facebook: unitetheunion1 Web: unitetheunion.org
    Unite is Britain and Ireland’s largest union with members working across all sectors of the economy. The general secretary is Len McCluskey.

     

    3 Comments

    THE GOVERNMENT’S DUTY TO KEEP THE PUBLIC SAFE OUTSOURCED TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR

    HANCOCK INCREASES PRIVATISATION BY STEALTH

    On Monday, the news broke that contact tracking and tracing (the next stage in managing the pandemic) will be outsourced to the private sector in the form of at least two private call-centre operators, one of which is Serco. They are providing 15,000 or more staff who, after one day of training, will be given a script to follow in conversations with people who have been in contact with confirmed cases of Covid-19.

    Ministers have been using the pandemic as an excuse to by-pass “normal” procedures for awarding Government contracts which involve invitations to tender and have been awarding contracts to a string of private companies and management consultants with no open competition.

    Even these “normal procedures” are a way the Tories privatise the NHS – the way they first began to do it – by insisting services which had previously been provided in-house by NHS employees, be “put out to tender”. Which is how firms like Carillion which went bust in Jan 2018 leaving debts of £7 billion, G4S, ISS, Sodexo, Bouygues and others came to be the employers of hospital porters, cleaners and catering services. A privatisation process dating back to 1979 and the Thatcher government and including more recently the Private Finance Initiative supported by the Labour Government of Tony Blair, but accepted as a disastrous debt-generator by subsequent Labour leaders.

    The Government has proved itself totally inept at managing the health crisis caused by the Coronavirus. It ignored the findings of Exercise Cygnus in 2016 which forecast the need – in the event of a pandemic – for ventilators, PPE and all the equipment which the NHS now faces a dangerous shortage of. The Government did not want to spend the money. In fact it has been cutting the NHS to the bone instead.

    Worse than cutting the funding, it has also been cherry-picking lucrative bits of the NHS and offering them to private investors for private gain at the expense of service to patients.

    When Johnson said “The NHS saved my life”, voters may have concluded “the NHS is safe in his hands. The Government understands how important it is now.” They do, but ten years of deconstructing the national service, outsourcing and privatising have gathered momentum and still retain their ideological grip on this government with its zero experience of worry about where the rent is coming from, or the next meal. The NHS has been viewed by the Tories as a potential cash cow for private investors and their already-rich Tory-supporting friends and it still is as these contracts for testing and tracing illustrate.

    At the beginning of the Covid Crisis, the SHA said, as did most of the medical profession and its journals, a range of statisticians, forecasters, epidemiologists and other scientists, that the dismissive and over-confident decisions of Johnson and Trump were seriously ill-founded; that pursuing the idea of “Herd Immunity” would mean that the NHS would be overwhelmed, and that the Government should accept the hand of friendship from the EU and other countries which offered to share sourcing of needed equipment (despite the “we can do better on our own” series of snubs to the rest of Europe, emanating from the UK Tory Government since 2016).

    These commentators urged the adoption of effective measures.

    1. To slow down the spread so the emergency services could cope, hence the lockdown, though the UK Government was slow to introduce it compared to other countries.

     

    1. To test for the virus and trace the contacts of those infected, so the lockdown could be relaxed without a second wave of the epidemic. Again the UK Government was slow to implement this. SHA President and Prof. of Public Health, Allyson Pollock said that tasks including testing, contact tracing and purchasing should be handled through regional authorities rather than central government.

    This was delayed while a private sector plan was cobbled together presumably to pre-empt the NHS, local authorities and other public sector bodies being asked to do the same, though they have a greater range of contacts, experience and expertise in spite of the relentless down-grading of the public health infrastructure and the budgetary strangulation of local councils.

    1. This would give time for a longer-term solution, and the development of a vaccine to reduce the numbers likely to get Covid-19 again, or reduce its severity.

    Firms such as Serco, Mitie, Boots, Deloitte, KPMG, and a US “data-mining” group called Palantir, have already acquired the rights to manage Covid-19 drive-in test centres, the building of the Nightingale Hospitals, and the purchasing of PPE. Deloitte, for example, is a multinational “professional services network” and one of the largest accounting organisations in the world, managed to acquire a contract to advise the Government on PPE purchases a few weeks ago. It thus took more decision-making authority from the NHS and local authorities, and shifted more power from the frontline. “It’s a power grab”, said Rosie Cooper MP, and we must protest in the strongest possible terms.

    Deloitte has had a poor track record in delivering PPE to the front line since the pandemic began, and taking more decision-making from NHS managers and local authorities shifts power further from the frontline and money for services into private pockets  The tax-payer pays for declining service.

    The Guardian said that NHS Trusts have now been instructed by the DHSC to stop buying their own PPE and ventilators or high value equipment for more general use in hospitals such as mobile X-ray machines, CT scanners and ultrasound machines.

    The system of tracking and tracing will be enabled by an NHS app on smart phones that alerts people that they have been near someone known to have the virus, or if they come into contact with an infected person in the future. Calling it an “NHS app” is no doubt intended to reassure people who might not want to use a Serco or Deloitte app for fear of what might happen to data on where they have been and to whom they might have been close. However, most of the contact tracing work will be contracted out to Serco and at least one other private-sector firm.

    The app goes on trial on the Isle of Wight this week. Supporters of the SHA on the Island (currently busy in a cooperative project of people with sewing machines, recycling donated duvet covers and sheets into scrubs for the frontline) tell us that it went live yesterday with NHS and Council staff, and will reach the rest of the Island by Thursday.

    The Isle of Wight was chosen as an area relatively cut off from the rest of the country during the lockdown, so a good place to study the spread of a virus. Currently there are limited ferry services for lorries transporting food and medicine and for ambulances to transfer serious medical cases to Southampton or Portsmouth. In addition the population is older than the UK average and fewer people have smart phones, so if it works reasonably well in those circumstances it should work even better nationally, says Hancock.

    South Korea did not go into lockdown. It adopted a strategy of widespread tracing and mass testing. Take-up would have to be very extensive for this to work here. There will be resistance to detailed personal data being collected by a multinational company. David Blunkett tried to get us to all have ID cards after 9/11 and met strong opposition from civil rights lawyers, trade unions and, indeed, Tories.

    The government is using the pandemic to transfer key public health activities from the NHS and other state bodies to the private sector. In 1977, Nicholas Ridley wrote a pre-Thatcher plan for the Tory Research Department in which he outlined a strategy of “privatisation of the NHS by stealth”.  “Managing” Covid 19 presents a good opportunity for taking this  further, building on the destructive intent of the 2012 Health & Social Care Act enabling a Tory government to give even more taxpayers money to the private sector.

    Testing and tracing is to be given to the public limited company Serco and others as yet undisclosed, but likely to include the security services firm G4S. Serco became infamous   for having tagged thousands of criminals who either did not exist or were dead and “other botched government contracts”, reported The Financial Times in 2015. The chief executive is Rupert Soames, appointed to turn around the business (whose shares had dropped 50%) who in turn recruited Sir Roy Gardner as Chair and replaced almost the entire board.

    Now, Serco has been appointed by the Johnson Administration to perform public health tasks in England for which it has little experience and little credibility with the general public. This tells you all you need to know about the current Government. Forget all the PR post Covid survival thanks to the NHS and the protestations of undying love for it.

    The real values of the Government are revealed in this move to spread public largesse to its own, although it will rely on public support for the NHS to get people to allow data on their every movement to be collected by a spy on their phone

    The reason why the NHS gets such massive support is because the general public use it, see it first-hand, recognise its skill and, crucially, know – in some imprecise way – that it is “theirs”.  It exists to look after all who come to it for its skills, whether Prime Ministers,  homeless veterans, newly born babies, or those beyond cure but never beyond care. And free at the point of use.

    In contrast, however well run Serco might be, and however well it learns in three weeks what it has taken local government and the NHS decades to absorb, its first duty is to its share holders and the need to pay a dividend.   In this century it will never get the trust that the NHS acquired in the last. Trust and values matter, especially where using personal information and getting the co-operation of millions of the public is concerned. The Times  reported Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, as saying the Government would have to make downloading the app “a duty to the NHS”.

    Further, at a time when it is abundantly clear that the NHS, local government, and bits of the already part privatised social care system cannot continue with the pre-Covid-19 settlement, the Serco option is as old fashioned as it is unwise.

    This is one part of the Government’s plan that Labour has to expose and oppose. Now!

    Vivien Walsh & Tony Beddow

    Leave a comment
    Posted on behalf of Carol Ackroyd and Jan Savage

    A travelling photographic exhibition about NHS-owned private companies and what these mean for staff, patients and the NHS

    Text by Jan Savage
    Photographs by Marion Macalpine

    You are warmly invited to the London launch

    25th November 2019,  6pm to 8pm
    with refreshments

    Unison Centre, 130 Euston Rd, London NW1 2AY
    Speakers to be confirmed

    RSVP to nhssubcos@gmail.com; also for information about access, or any other queries

    The exhibition is accompanied by a research-based booklet giving additional information.
    The exhibition will be available for borrowing without charge, contact nhssubcos@gmail.com

     

    Please circulate to friends and colleagues who night be interested to attend or borrow the exhibition.

    Many thanks

    Marion Macalpine

    Hackney KONP

    and for Jan Savage

    Tower Hamlets KONP

    invitation Subco final RSVP

    Leave a comment

    Integrated Care is the most recent re-naming of Accountable Care: the system currently being implemented in the NHS in England and which is derived from the US. This blog addresses issues arising from this implementation and whether or not Integrated Care is fit for public purpose.

    The narrative that comes from Westminster, echoed by parts of the media and even some campaigners, is that whilst cuts and closures, underfunding, understaffing and poor NHS management at the highest levels are all contributory factors to the problems the NHS faces, there is no overarching concern with Integrated Care itself.

    On the contrary, the bringing together of commissioners (purchases of services) and providers of services is viewed as getting rid of the hated ‘purchaser-provider split’ which is isolated in this narrative from all other structural components and becomes a proxy for the market system. On this point alone the move to Integrated Care is seen as a stepping stone to a return to public service. There is even some movement to reclaim ‘integrated’ as a term of public service.

    There are very good reasons why tackling this issue head on may be politically sensitive. Labour is keen to claim for itself not only the creation of the NHS (which it historically deserves) but a current role as the best defence against Trump. The Secretary of State for Health also claims that he will not allow the NHS to be in US-UK trade talks ‘on his watch’. That is understandable, but the love affair of the major UK political parties with United Health and Kaiser Permanente, amongst others, goes more than skin deep. US Integrated Care has been introduced into the NHS piecemeal over the last 30 years and we are now into the full adoption of an NHS ‘version’ being rolled out at speed. It’s here where the argument lies for politicians, think tanks and amongst campaigners . A question mark is raised over its origins and over whether it is irredeemably bad for the NHS or not.

    Our counter argument is threefold:
    1. The Integrated Care System does not in fact remove the ‘purchaser-provider split’, but merely changes it to a different type.
    2. The constraints put upon the NHS to meet the requirements of Integrated Care are set out in terms of restructuring the service in such a way that it will no longer meet the key tenets embedded in it from its creation: delivering all services for everyone within (mostly) easy reach.
    3. “One thing the community cannot do is insure against itself. What it can and must do is to set aside an agreed proportion of the national revenues for the creation and maintenance of the service it has pledged itself to provide.” Bevan’s statement worked on a national level while the ICS model creates a risk and reward system in which profit and loss are to be shared locally between the constituent players of 44 ‘local health economies’. This is entirely upending the basis for financing the NHS.

    Integrated Care
    The concept of Integrated Care is a longstanding method in the United States which was created to try and reduce the healthcare costs which are spiralling out of control. The most expensive part of any healthcare system anywhere in the world is acute care. It needs higher concentrations of staff per patient, more infrastructure – both buildings and equipment – and changes more rapidly than other parts of the service in its response to technological advances.
    It follows from an accounting point of view that any measures which can be taken to ‘reduce demand’ on the acute sector will reduce costs. Part of the cost reduction exercise in the US involves forming collaborative bodies (Accountable Care Organisations aka Integrated Care) which share profit or loss across the different constituent bodies – that is to say the insurance groups who provide the funding from their clients (state or private) plus various hospitals, GP practices and other health services. The profit and loss sharing is designed to provide incentives for keeping people out of hospital and in theory to keep them more healthy in the community.
    From the above, it is clear that purchasing and providing still exist within US Accountable Care and that it in no sense represents a return to the kind of planning required to run a public service NHS. The same is true of the system being implemented in England.

    Restructuring the NHS
    In order to attempt to meet the accounting criteria behind Integrated Care, the NHS’ historical provision of local GP family practices, local District General Hospitals that include full Accident and Emergency and other local services must be dismantled. Acute and emergency provision is calculated to be more cost effective if it is concentrated in hospitals that service a much larger population. Local hospitals then become satellites to the centralised major trauma hospital no longer offering the full service we are used to.
    GPs are being corralled into much larger units which may run the satellite hospital or work from large centralised clinics. Property made ‘surplus’ from these restructurings can be sold as a result.
    These changes are an intrinsic part of the development of Integrated Care. They are not optional, nor do they come about only as a result of the last nine years of below inflation funding.
    None of the descriptions above are based on assumptions. They all come from official NHS England and Sustainability and Transformation Partnership policy documents. The reality is evident on the ground.

    Risk and Rewards
    “Risk and reward sharing is underpinned by a theory of change that expects a provider to adjust its behaviour in response to financial incentives”
    Early adopters of the ACO model in 2012 in the US, known as Pioneers (see our report on ACOs for more details), were allowed to move to a full capitated budget. This represents the full transfer of risks from the commissioner to the ACO and it means the ACO has the incentive to cut costs in order to maximise its profit share from the budget. As in those early pioneer ACOs, NHS England has made it clear that it wishes to pass all financial risks to the Integrated Care Systems. But unlike the US model, an NHS ICS does not necessarily have to include acute hospital services in its provider collaboratives. As the greatest losses fall on acute hospital services this creates the possibility of a collaborative being formed only from those providers who can best make profits.
    Our report into ACOs explains how many of the participants in the early US pioneer programme failed to see many of the implications of a shared savings programme, seeing only its potential benefits. They later discovered that they had serious financial difficulties.
    This question of risk and reward sharing is one of the most important issues for an NHS provider and illustrates how they have moved from being government provided services to government commissioned services. Under this scheme an NHS provider could potentially suffer significant losses risking its financial viability to the point where it may collapse as a business.

    The failures of private sector providers, as we have seen in recent years, causes inconvenience for commissioners and loss of services for patients but the potential collapse of an NHS body would have far more serious ramifications. There is also the case where a majority of an ICS’ services are provided by private sector organisations which opens the door to profits flowing out of NHS funds. Furthermore the arrangements for how both risks and rewards will be shared between providers adds another layer of complexity to the transaction costs of the NHS. This, of course, provides yet more work for management consultancies, big accountancy firms and lawyers.

    What’s to be done?
    We fully appreciate the desire of campaigners to achieve victories in the face of what feels to be overwhelming odds. Each local victory does throw a welcome spanner in the works. However, to ignore the structural changes being brought in and not to recognise the part that each individual closure or downgrade plays in the overall pattern of change is to ignore the elephant in the room.
    That is why we think the slogan ‘Act Local, Think National’ should always be embedded in every campaign. It is important to understand that the national picture gives the corporate sector a major role in the future of the NHS as it has done increasingly over the last thirty years and that the model currently being adapted is specifically based on US Integrated Care.
    This is a system built fundamentally on business principles with competition and the profit motive in its DNA. This is not a system that lends itself to public ownership and provision serving the public interest.
    President Trump’s statement about the NHS being on the table in future trade talks set off a raft of responses including Jeremy Corbyn tweeting, ‘Labour will [..] ensure US private companies cannot lay a hand on our NHS. The NHS is not for sale’ and Matt Hancock saying, ‘not on my watch’. It has understandably provoked a lot of comments on social media and discussions in the press about the importance of keeping the US out of the NHS in the future. But the challenge is to change the conversation so that we openly oppose US corporate interests influencing our NHS now.

    Deborah Harrington

    Who We Are

    4 Comments

    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
    All the Tory contenders to be prime minister should categorially rule out the NHS being part of any future US/UK trade deal, Unite, Britain and Ireland’s largest union, said today (Wednesday 5 June).
    Unite, which has 100,000 members in the health service, said the new prime minister ‘should not offer up the NHS as a sacrificial lamb to US president Donald Trump’.
    Unite national officer for health Colenzo Jarrett-Thorpe said: “The Tory prime ministerial contenders need to put the national interest – in this case, the safeguarding the NHS from US privateers – before the personal ambition of getting their hands on the keys to 10 Downing Street.” 
    Concern about what a US/UK trade deal could mean for the NHS has heightened this week following remarks by Donald Trump and his ambassador in London, Woody Johnson about the NHS being included in a future US trade deal
    Colenzo Jarrett-Thorpe added: “The NHS is the UK’s greatest achievement – but for Trump and his ilk, who despise the very idea of universal healthcare free at the point of delivery, all they can see is the money to be made from the sick, frail and vulnerable. 
    “This was made obvious by the US ambassador’s very frank comments about his country’s intentions towards the NHS in any future US/UK trade deal, a point that was again made by Trump himself. The president’s comments today are not reassuring in any way. Unless the government categorically says that the NHS is not for sale, then patients and staff will face increasing uncertainty and worry.
    “The Tory leadership hopefuls need to state categorially to the British public that the NHS is not up for sale to profit hungry US private healthcare companies as part of a future trade deal.
    ‘Leading Tories and their cheerleaders in the media may think that the US offers a blueprint for how a post-Brexit Britain should be – however, it should not be forgotten that millions of Americans don’t have any health insurance which does not inspire confidence.
    “We strongly believe that the NHS should not be offered up as a free trade sacrificial lamb to the mercurial whims of Donald Trump – our sick, frail and vulnerable deserve so much better.”

     

    Leave a comment

    In the two decades since the publication of the Sutherland Royal Commission report on long-term care the issues around the cost of caring for an ageing population remains one of the major issues in public policy. And we remain no nearer to its resolution.

    While varying elements of catering for long-term care remain the responsibility of the UK Government, devolution has allowed a fair level innovation and diversity in approach including the introduction of free personal care in Scotland which was one of the main recommendations of the Sutherland Commission.

    In Wales the National Assembly’s Finance Committee has recently published a useful report on the matter from a Welsh perspective.

    In very broad terms the report looked at two inter-related issues i) delivering quality care and ii) how that care will be accessed and paid for.

    The report highlighted that while social care in under considerable financial pressure in Wales the level of spend has remained broadly flat in real terms between 2009-10 and 2015-16 compared to a 6.4% decline in England. None the less with an increasingly older population the per capita spending has reduced by 12%.

    In responding to this pressure, and despite the increase in numbers, there was evidence that fewer older adults were receiving care. It was suggested that this was in part a reflection of the Welsh Government’s policy to promote more self-reliance and a better matching of service to need but concerns was also expressed that eligibility criteria were being tightened which means that it is more difficult to access care.

    There is a greater proportion of unpaid carers in Wales compared to other parts of the UK and Europe representing 12% of the population. They are responsible for 96% of the care that is given in the community even though 65% of older carers have health problems of their own. The Social Services and Well-being Act (2014) in Wales was intended to increase support for carers but of the 370,000 carers only about 6,200 / year had an assessment with less than 20% receiving an offer of care. In response the Welsh Government has said that it is preparing a major publicity drive to make the carers more aware of their rights and to better equip social workers in their assessment of carers’ needs.

    In Wales the means testing for care services is more generous that in England with the Welsh Government committed to increasing the capital eligibility thresholds for residential care to £50,000 by the end of it present term. In addition there is a cap on the level of payments for domiciliary packages. There were concerns that these thresholds could deprive social services departments of vital resources but the Welsh Government grant support has prevented that from happening.

    The social care sector remains in a fragile state.. There are many instances in which private domiciliary care companies have handed back contracts to local authorities who have, in some instances, been obliged to in-source the service. The residential care sector is also under pressure particularly smaller more community based care homes. In part this is down to the fees that it is able to agree with social services departments. The rates vary across Wales, often inexplicably, and the Welsh Government has committed itself to introducing a new assessment methodology to bring greater transparency and consistency in the fee structure. In addition it is hoped that this new process will address the concerns where self-funding care home residents are paying fee levels which are, in effect, cross subsidising the public sector.

    These problems are compounded by the difficulties in the recruitment and retention of staff with some providers reporting turnover levels of 25-33% every year. There are real issues of pay, status and training that need to be addressed. The Welsh Government has been promoting the voluntary registration of domiciliary care workers from 2018 with the target of compulsory registration by 2020. As well it is committed to reducing the use of zero hours contracts and to requiring a delineation between travel and work time in the working day. However it is still difficult to keep care staff when faced with better pay and conditions in other parts of the public and private sector. And all of this is likely to be exacerbated by the UK’s departure from the EU.

    The report also looked at future funding models. The Welsh Government believes that a UK wide solution would be preferable but the continuing postponement of the UK Government’s green paper on social care means that other options will have to be looked at including the use of Welsh income tax powers which will be available from April 2019.

    In addition a lot of consideration was given to the social care levy which has been advanced by Prof Gerry Holtham and Tegid Roberts.. Their proposal involves the HMRC to collect a levy between 1-3% depending on a person’s age. This sum would be lodged in an investment fund and used to pay for an enhanced social care package. However the report strongly believed that there needed to be a wider public debate on what the public could expect to receive in return for their contributions. The Welsh Government has established an Inter-Ministerial Group on Paying for Social Care with five separate work streams to consider the the full range of the implications of such a social care levy.

    The Welsh Government’s policy statement A Healthier Wales (2018) confirmed its intent to support closer collaboration between health and social care in Wales using regional partnership boards as their main instrument to achieve this. Concerns were expressed that Wales lacked a sufficiently robust evidence base to inform social care planning thought the Welsh Government was not convinced about this. There was also a recognition of the very useful role that the Intermediate Care Fund has played in facilitating joint working between health and local government bodies.

    Overall this is a useful report which highlights many of the key challenges facing social care in Wales. However there is little evidence that the Welsh Government is in a position to move toward an fully integrated “health and care service” free at the point of use or that it is likely to seek the devolution of the administration welfare benefits service which could allow for a more innovative proposals for the paying for the care of older people in Wales.

    3 Comments

    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

    Brexit is opening the door to NHS chaos in so many ways. But we are now presented with a new threat.

    There have been concerns for many years, often expressed in this column, that the 2012 Tory design of the NHS opens the way to privatising not only services but also commissioning itself. Fighting the impact of the 2012 Act and its offspring such as ACOs/ICSs has been paramount. By shrinking the state at the same time as imposing austerity, the Tories have created the conditions for increasing mortality rates. This appears to be taking place now.

    But Brexit has opened a new front: The Ideal US-UK Free Trade Agreement – A Free Trader’s Perspective.

    Striking trade deals independent of the EU is the Brexiteers’ dream. This document shows how it can become a nightmare for the NHS.

    The paper was released in September and is a US/UK collaboration of right-wing institutes fronted by the Initiative for Free Trade and the Cato Institute. MP Daniel Hannan is a co-author……………………

    The aim is to open all sectors of the economy to investment from business. It should open all services markets without exception to competition.

    They say: “The ideal FTA is one that removes all barriers to trade in goods and services, opens up all sectors of the economy to investment and, ultimately, goes as far as possible to remove all administrative impediments to integration of the economies of the parties without encroaching on the sovereignty of governments to pass laws and regulate in the public interest in ways that do not discriminate against foreign goods, services and companies”

    They call for “zero restrictions on competition for government procurement.”

    They have a particular interest in health services.

    “Health services are an area where both sides would benefit from openness to foreign competition, although we recognise any changes to existing legislation will be extremely controversial. Perhaps, then, the initial focus should be on other fields such as education or legal services, where negotiators can test the waters and see what is possible. That said, we envisage a swift, time-tabled implementation of recognition across all areas within 5 years.”

    There it is – a blueprint for privatisation, starting with what they deem softer areas like education and moving on to the NHS within 5 years.

    The document goes into some detail about how such a Free Trade Agreement would deal with a range of other arenas and issues.

    Milton Friedman, one of the principal architects of the current neo-liberal world order now failing the world, said: “There is nothing as powerful as an idea when its time has come. I say that time is a crisis, actual or perceived. When the crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas lying around.”

    Hannan and his co-conspirators are seeding these ideas so that they become available when needed.

    Beware Brexiteers bearing false promises – many were hoodwinked by the lies about massive NHS investment. Trade Agreements are likely to offer similar attractive lies. We must remain vigilant against these crazy and dangerous proposals.

    Published with acknowledgements of GP Magazine.

     

    Leave a comment

    National Health Service (Co-Funding and Co-Payment) Bill

    2017-19

    Type of Bill:

             Private Members’ Bill (Presentation Bill)

    Sponsor:

             Mr Christopher Chope

    Progress of a Bill

    House of Commons

    First reading, Second reading, Committee stage, Report stage, Third reading

    House of Lords

    First reading, Second reading, Committee stage, Report stage, Third reading

    Consideration of the Amendments

    Royal Assent

    This Bill is expected to have its second reading debate on Friday 26 October 2018.

    This Bill was presented to Parliament on Tuesday 5 September 2017. This is known as the first reading and there was no debate on the Bill at this stage.

    Details of the Bill

    National Health Service (Co-Funding and Co-Payment) Bill (HC Bill 37)

    A

    BILL

    TO

    Make provision for co-funding and for the extension of co-payment for NHS services in England; and for connected purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1.    Amendment of section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006

      (1)      The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.

      (2)     In section 1 (Secretary of State’s duty to promote comprehensive health  service), in subsection (4)—

               (a)   the words “the making and recovery of charges is expressly provided for by or under any enactment, whenever passed” become paragraph
                      (a), and

                     (b)   after paragraph (a), insert or

                     (b)   the charges form part of an agreement in England for co-funding or co-payment.

    2.  Other amendments of the National Health Service          Act 2006

      (1)       The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.

      (2)      After section 12E (Secretary of State’s duty as respects variation in provision of  health services), insert—

                                           ““Co-Funding and Co-Payment

      12F                Co-Funding and Co-Payment: England

      (1)            For the purposes of this Act, co-funding of NHS care shall be permissible in England when NHS-commissioned care is proposed to be partly funded—

                         (a)         by a patient, or

                         (b)      on behalf of a patient

      (2)           Co-payments permitted by virtue of this Act shall, in England, include payments made through co-funding as provided for in subsection (1)

     3             Extent, commencement and short title

      (1)          This Act extends to England and Wales.

      (2)          This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two months after the day on which it receives Royal Assent.

      (3)          This Act may be cited as the National Health Service (Co-Funding and Co-Payment) 2018.

    2 Comments

    Privatisation has been the economic policy of successive governments since the 1970s. All the major infrastructure, utilities and manufacturing industries which had been brought into public ownership in the immediate post-war period have been sold off, as single share offers, wholesale private transfers, or partial staged transfers. Privatisation has been developed through the remaining public services, with local authorities increasingly turning into commissioning hubs rather than direct employers, education transferring its assets and management to the private sector through the Academy programme and courts, prisons and more being owned and run by the private sector. 

    That privatisation is government policy is not in question. The question is how far that has affected the NHS.  

    Privatisation of the NHS began as far back as 1983 when the cleaning services started to be put out to tender. That has had fairly disastrous consequences with the spread of ‘superbugs’ being attributable to the cleaners no longer forming part of integrated core teams on wards.

    Other privatisations, including IT services, facilities management, out-of-hours GP services and the 111 service, have had patchy results; some have been a waste of money, some have failed to show any benefit over public provision, some, like the cleaning services, have been cheaper but a lower standard. Interestingly these privatisations are not discussed or presented as ‘privatisation of the NHS’, or part-privatisation, although they clearly are.

    The NHS is the sum of all the parts that make it function, not just its clinical services. This intellectual sleight of hand of naming private-sector takeover of asset ownership and management, ancillary and backroom services as normal business practice or ‘just outsourcing’ rather than service privatisation has allowed a significant part of the NHS to be privatised without being acknowledged as such.  

    The House of Commons Library briefing on privatisation defines the need for a competition regulator as one of the essential features of the move from public to private provision. Regulators have been brought in over the last 20 years via various bodies up to the current position of the CQC and NHS Improvement, reflecting the need for market regulation. 

    The Health & Social Care Act (2012)

    The Health and Social Care Act (2012) continued the process of privatisation. It has become commonplace to describe the Act as a mistake. But given that privatisation is the dominant economic policy, the Act is not a mistake, it is merely a continuation of that policy.  

    Privatisation is embedded in the Act in several ways. It removes the NHS in England to arm’s length from government. The relationship between the state and the service changes with the responsibility of provision lying outside the government department. The government’s remit alters significantly from being responsible for provision and planning to providing a Mandate and a funding stream to NHS England and authorising the NHS ‘kite-mark’ through NHS Identity.  

    NHS Identity’s website gives advice and regulations about using the brand to the NHS family, which includes public, private and voluntary sector partners. 

    The Act also created the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). Section 75 3(a) of the Act imposes requirements relating to competitive tendering for the provision of services. 

    The interpretation of this provision is a source of contention with the government arguing that the clause gives CCGs choice about tendering out services and the CCGs feeling that they are open to legal challenge if they do not tender. The CCGs and Section 75 are the engine that powers the privatisation of clinical services. The constituent members of the CCGs – GPs – do not have the collective skills to carry out the complex procurement process of putting services out to tender. They use Commissioning Support Units such as Optum, the UK subsidiary of United Health of America, to perform this function. 

    The CCGs are also not bound to supply the same range of services nationally. They have some core clinical responsibilities but can put restrictions on others according to their financial needs. This can lead to situations where hospitals request patients to check with their commissioner to ensure they will cover payment before they start treatment, otherwise they have self-pay and insurance options available. In all but name this makes the CCGs act as local insurance groups to their registered patients, rather than service providers with common service standards set at national level. 

    Trusts and Foundation Trusts are also empowered by the Act to increase the amount of private patient income they can earn. The Act specifies that they must earn the majority of their income from NHS funding. But that is interpreted as meaning that up to 49% can be from other sources. This can include rent from retail spaces and car parks as well as private patients.  

    The Five Year Forward View

    Simon Stevens, CEO of NHS England, produced a Five Year Forward View (5YFV) for the NHS in England in October 2014. This is largely presented by the media, politicians of all stripes and think tanks, such as The King’s Fund, as a way of integrating services to end the fragmentation caused by the 2012 Act and to bring an end to the split between commissioners and provider organisations. In 2013, immediately after the implementation of the Act, The Better Care Fund was rolled out as a series of local programmes under different names; ‘Better Together’, ‘Fit for the Future’, etc… Its stated intention is to shift the focus from acute hospital settings into local authority based social and community care.

    The 5YFV started with a series of Vanguard testbeds and will end with Integrated Care Systems and possibly Accountable (or Integrated) Care Organisations.  The stated intention of the 5YFV is to shift the focus from acute hospital settings into local authority based social and community care. In other words, even though they have different names, the two programmes have exactly the same aim.

    This illustrates that the HSCA 2012 was not a mistake but is in fact a continuation of policy. That is why the findings of Michael Mansfield’s 2015 independent inquiry into Shaping a Healthier Future in NW London is still relevant. It highlights how this programme is moving services away from those areas most in need of them towards high-density, more profitable areas.

    The reality of the 5YFV is that it is a re-shaping of the NHS to fit with a predicted permanent reduction in funding levels. It is based on a reduction of the total number of fully functioning blue-light A&Es from the 144 A&Es in England in 2013 reduced to somewhere between 40-70. These will be large major trauma centres. There will be no more than two for each of the 44 Sustainability and Transformation areas (STPs) which were announced in December 2015 as part of the implementation of the 5YFV. Some STPs will only have one. This is the case in Northumberland, an early adopter of the system. 

    Other hospitals are having their A&Es downgraded and services transferred to the trauma centres along with their income. When campaigners are fighting across the country to save their local A&Es they are really fighting against the 5YFV. Acute and emergency care is being separated from elective (planned) care. Planned care is more attractive to the private sector as it is low risk and high income. It is one of the areas of clinical care included in the ‘7.9%’ of privatisation quoted in the Health and Social Care Select Committee’s oral evidence session. 

    The 5YFV also envisages using the sale of property as a form of pump-priming of the changes. The Naylor Review (part of the 5YFV process) goes further in working on the transfer of services out of owned properties into rented accommodation, built and managed by the private sector. 

    The 2012 Act also created NHS Property Services Ltd, the ‘PropCo’, which took ownership of all the properties previously in the stewardship of the Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts. The PropCo is a private company, currently wholly owned by the Department of Health & Social Care. It also charges commercial rents. 

    The 5YFV encourages the separation of midwives from the hospitals to form their own companies to provide midwifery in the community. It contains plans for the widespread use of vouchers for maternity and personal health budgets for the disabled and those with other long-term health needs. These vouchers and budgets can be spent in the private or public sector. 

    Privatisation: an economic policy

    Analysing the overall effect of privatisation in the NHS will take time. Whilst there is little evidence of an increase in health insurance schemes, there is evidence that more people are turning to self-pay options to avoid waiting times. For a cultural change to happen people have to accept the principle that there will be things outside the ‘NHS menu’ that they will have to pay for – that cultural change hasn’t happened yet.

    Descriptions of how little impact the private sector has currently had on the NHS avoids the issue of how little unmet need is being created by the reconfigurations. It is in the unmet need that the principles of universal and comprehensive care are being lost.

    The report from the Health and Social Care Select Committee on Integrated Care is absolutely explicit about the need to retain ‘choice’ of providers and to avoid the ‘danger of creating airless rooms in which you simply have one provider who is there for a huge amount of time’.

    This is the economics of privatisation and it needs to be addressed at parliamentary and legislative level. The Health and Social Care Committee recommends new legislation. On the current trajectory that will mean the introduction of ACOs.

    The battle to promote the principles of public service as public good still has to be fought and won if the privatisation agenda within the NHS is to be brought to a halt.

    The NHS [Reinstatement] Bill will be presented under the 10 Minute Rule by Eleanor Smith MP on 11 July 2018.

    2 Comments