(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)

NHS faces radical pro-market shakeup

Leading healthcare and union figures issue warnings as Andrew Lansley unveils agenda involving 'inevitable' job losses

Andrew Lansley
Andrew Lansley's white paper proposes to abolish 10 strategic health authorities by 2012 and 150 primary care trusts by 2013. Photograph: PA

The health secretary has unveiled a radical pro-market agenda for the NHS that would permit hospitals to leave public ownership to become "not for profit" companies, hand more consumer powers to patients and allow failing medical centres to go bust.

Andrew Lansley's white paper, which sparked anger from unions and some doctors, could, in the words of one analyst, herald the "denationalisation of healthcare services in England".

The plans could represent the biggest shakeup of the NHS in a generation, with a whole tier of the NHS decapitated: 10 strategic health authorities would be abolished by 2012 and the 150 primary care trusts scrapped by 2013; up to 30,000 managers face being cut or redeployed.

Lansley warned that NHS job losses were "inevitable" but said it was vital to switch cash from bureaucracy into frontline services. "The sick must not pay for the debt crisis left by the previous administration. But the NHS is a priority for reform too. Investment has not been matched by reform. So we will reform the NHS to use those resources more effectively for the benefit of patients."

At the heart of the blueprint are family doctors, who will take over the purchase of care and be overseen by an independent commissioning board and a new economic regulator. England's 35,000 GPs will be handed £80bn of taxpayers' money and be forced to form consortiums by 2013 – there will be no opportunity to opt out of the new system. These 500 consortiums will commission treatment from hospitals on behalf of patients. At present, the NHS works via primary care trusts and the Department of Health determines each trust's spending priorities, which involves managing GPs' surgeries.

The ambition is for GPs, who are, in effect, private businesses with a contract to provide services to the NHS, to help patients choose which hospital to use on the basis of detailed success rates, down to the level of individual surgeons.

Lansley's plan puts the coalition on a collision course with the medical unions and hospital staff at a time when the NHS must find £20bn of savings.

Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of BMA council, said: "Any reorganisation of the NHS must take place in consultation with clinicians so that it does not cause any disruption to patient services or needlessly waste the valuable time of healthcare professionals."

The "privatisation" of the NHS has caused much dissent in the medical community. Laurence Buckman, of the BMA's general practice committee, also raised concerns that sections of the white paper suggest the government "would be happy for the private sector to turn up" and be involved in healthcare. He said: "The BMA position on this is that we would not be happy [for private sector involvement]. We don't think it is necessary."

Lansley's analysis is that the NHS has suffered from a lack of competition and choice – and that the improvements over the last decade, such as major reductions in waiting times, have been driven largely by bureaucratic targets and tens of billions of pounds of extra spending. So market forces will be introduced for hospitals.

By 2014 every hospital will be a foundation trust and all will be allowed to leave public ownership while still providing public services. This would mean they could borrow "off balance sheet" – fulfilling Tony Blair's original vision of the bodies being outside Treasury control.

They will be given the choice to become mutuals, adopting a John Lewis-style model where a medical centre would be owned by the staff.

Such moves would be fiercely resisted by trade unions as new employees could be shut out of the NHS pension scheme and the plan would introduce variable pay schemes across the NHS.

David Nicholson, the NHS chief executive, warned that he wanted talks with the unions over NHS "pay and redundancy" terms. At present NHS workers can receive two years' salary if made redundant and all NHS staff earning more than £21,000 face a two-year pay freeze. Karen Jennings, Unison head of health, said the white paper was "a recipe for more privatisation". "NHS staff will feel badly let down by plans to undermine national pay bargaining. In a race to do this, the government wants employers to lead negotiations on new contracts resulting in a two-tier workforce within trusts and anomalies across the NHS."

Hospitals would also be able to cater for private patients, with the lifting of the arbitrary cap on the amount of income foundation trusts can raise from "other sources". Lansley cited the Royal Marsden, a world-famous specialist cancer treatment hospital in London, as a trailblazer. "It is no coincidence that 25% of their income is private and that helps support the quality of service, research and innovation," he said. Charities and the private sector will be encouraged to challenge the public sector by making it easier for them to sell services to the NHS. There will be no "bailouts" for hospitals who overspend and go bust – raising the spectre of bankruptcy across the health sector.

Alan Maynard, professor of health economics at the University of York, said: "You are certainly using the private sector in a much larger way than has been contemplated for decades …But whether it can work, well the proof of the pudding would be in the eating."

Although Lansley denied there would be an overhaul of the Food Standards Agency, the health watchdog which had lost a running battle with industry over a controversial "traffic light" labelling scheme, the Department of Health later confirmed its dismemberment was being considered. "As part of our wider drive to increase the accountability of public bodies and reduce their number and cost we will also consider where some of the other functions of the FSA should best sit to ensure they are delivered most effectively," it said.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Comments are now closed for this entry.
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

  • Bobbyb71 Bobbyb71

    12 Jul 2010, 9:47PM

    Theyve always wanted to do it.

    Subhuman scum handing our only decent institution to the rich.

    F**king deplorable and there's nothing we can do about it.

  • hisbigal hisbigal

    12 Jul 2010, 9:48PM

    This is bad, bad all-around. This is the last thing we need over here. You don't want this to happen in the UK. Look at the US health care system; it's in shambles, and privatising NHS will be a catastrophe.

  • atimeofchanges atimeofchanges

    12 Jul 2010, 9:48PM

    "Lansley's analysis is that the NHS has suffered from a lack of competition and choice"

    That's not analysis, it's opinion, shaped by ideological conviction. The Con Dems should come clean and admit it.

  • salamandertome salamandertome

    12 Jul 2010, 9:54PM

    The 500 new commissioning 'consortiums' are each going to need managers, administrators and IT systems - I dont see the scope for saving money. The last thing the NHS needs is three years of turmoil while the ideas of yet another new government are found to be ill-conceived and impossible to implemented in the timescales envisaged.

    Nobody voted for this, a complete re-organisation of the NHS was definitely not on any Party's manifesto at the election. We are being royally shafted by this coalition - lets "Save the NHS"!

  • Eachran Eachran

    12 Jul 2010, 9:55PM

    Sirles, the UK rail system seems to work at least as well as the French system, at least last time I experienced it 4 days ago : polite staff and punctual trains.

    A question for you whingers.

    Is the policy for most public services now one of accreditation? If so I would be in favour for both universities and health care.

    We shall see, but I regard you Brits as sufficiently pragmatic to call a halt if things start to go awry.

    You worriers out there, do you really think that Dashing and Nick are ideological? You have to be joking.

  • orangechoc orangechoc

    12 Jul 2010, 9:58PM

    The plans could represent the biggest shakeup of the NHS in a generation, with a whole tier of the NHS decapitated: 10 strategic health authorities would be abolished by 2012 and the 150 primary care trusts scrapped by 2013; up to 30,000 managers face being cut or redeployed.

    The managers are here to keep records of what the hospitals are actually doing. Prior to Payment by Results the hospital records are doggy, the block contracts simply has no incentives for the hospitals to keep records / bookkeeping pristine. These "managers" have spruced up the bookkeeping and hospital records immensely. Cut them out and within a few years we are back to the dark ages where no one knows shit.

  • RaceAndClass RaceAndClass

    12 Jul 2010, 9:58PM

    This latest proposal is very simply the latest phase of the gradual moves over 30 years to slowly privatise the NHS.

    Blair started the process by compartmentalising the NHS structure to make it vulnerable to this kind of piecemeal attack.

    We have to fight it tooth and nail and make sure the NHS stays public, politically accountable and accessible to all on the basis of "need, not greed".

    Anyone who believed that the Tories or the Diberal Lemon Hats would not seek to harm the NHS now has the clear evidence that they do seek to do just that and they will.unless we boldly fight for it.

    If YOU (reader) don't fight for it You will lose it.

  • RaceAndClass RaceAndClass

    12 Jul 2010, 9:59PM

    This latest proposal is very simply the latest phase of the gradual moves over 30 years to slowly privatise the NHS.

    Blair started the process by compartmentalising the NHS structure to make it vulnerable to this kind of piecemeal attack.

    We have to fight it tooth and nail and make sure the NHS stays public, politically accountable and accessible to all on the basis of "need, not greed".

    Anyone who believed that the Tories or the Diberal Lemon Hats would not seek to harm the NHS now has the clear evidence that they do seek to do just that and they will.unless we boldly fight for it.

    If YOU (reader) don't fight for it You will lose it.

  • orangechoc orangechoc

    12 Jul 2010, 10:02PM

    Will the Condems be brave enough to put their policies into practice in only part of UK, to test if their "analyses" is correct, to see if health actually improves and people aren't dying quicker as a result of hospitals trying to make more money?

    ConDems - if you are going to implement changes, at least do a natural experiment to see if it works before doing a wholesale change. I dare you.

    But of course they wouldn't dare. It will be like Poll Tax in Scotland.

  • Eachran Eachran

    12 Jul 2010, 10:02PM

    RaceAndClass, dont be ridiculous.

    The NHS provides an excellent service for very little cost in comparison to other countries. Perhaps reorganising the system a little would give even better value for money.

  • weathereye weathereye

    12 Jul 2010, 10:04PM

    Now that Lansley has announced their massive reforms of the NHS, and having started already by abolishing the GP waiting time targets, this is the right time to ask which of the other treatment targets they also proposes to scrap. They are contained in the Handbook to the NHS Constitution

    http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/NHSConstitution/Documents/COI_NHSConstitutionWEB2010.pdf

    Access to a primary care professional within 24 hours or a primary care doctor within 48 hours; ALREADY SCRAPPED:

    Access to other health services:

    Two week wait from referral for suspected cancer to being seen by a specialist

    A maximum 31-day wait for subsequent treatment where the treatment is surgery;

    A maximum 31-day wait for subsequent treatment where the treatment is an anti-cancer drug regimen;

    A maximum 62-day wait from referral for suspected cancer to first treatment for all cancers;

    No more than 2 months wait between an urgent GP referral for suspected cancer and starting treatment

    Starting treatment no more than 31 days after the meeting at which you and your doctor agree the treatment plan

    The right to start your consultant-led treatment within a maximum of 18 weeks from referral for non-urgent conditions.

    A maximum two-week wait to see a specialist for all patients referred for investigation of breast symptoms, even if cancer is not initially suspected;

    A maximum four-hour wait in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge;

    A maximum three-month wait for patients who need a revascularisation;••a maximum two-week wait for Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinics;

    Access to a genito-urinary medicine clinic within 48 hours of contacting a service;

    All patients who have operations cancelled, on or after the day of admission (including the day of surgery), for non-clinical reasons to be offered another binding date within 28 days, or the patient’s treatment to be funded at the time and hospital of the patient’s choice;

    All ambulance trusts to respond to 75 per cent of Category A calls within eight minutes and to respond to 95 per cent of Category A calls within 19 minutes of a request being made for a fully equipped ambulance vehicle (car or ambulance) able to transport the patient in a clinically safe manner;

    All ambulance trusts to respond to 95 per cent of Category B calls within 19 minutes.

    For thosw who remain reliant on the NHS, those are the remaining yardsticks that the coalition’s plans can be measured against. Let us see how many more of them the Cameron/Lansley reforms intend to dump.

    We may yet well have to heed again in Britain 2010 an earlier warning in 1983 not to fall ill.

    Meanwhile Lansley and his kind will no doubt be setting themselves up for some lucrative directorships of international medical care companies in around five years time. So stuff the rest of us. The treachery of the Tories and Tory-lite is being written very large.

  • Eachran Eachran

    12 Jul 2010, 10:05PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • sammer sammer

    12 Jul 2010, 10:05PM

    'Tony Blair's original vision.'

    Thanks for the clarification amidst the weasle words about foundation trusts and borrowing off balance sheets.

    The NHS has been an embarrassment to the Tories since its inception because it is a symbol of a socialist style solution to medical care. Lately it has also become an embarrassment to a Labour Party peopled with those from Oxbridge backgrounds who already enjoy private medical provision. In fact the NHS may even be an embarrassment to to trade union members who 'enjoy' cover from the likes of BUPA.

    The Lib Dems must be wetting themselves with excitement. They are going to be party to demolishing the NHS and can roar with approval rather like those citizens from the former Soviet bloc who cheered as statues of Lenin/Stalin were pulled from their pedestals in 'spontaneous demonstrations.'

    Give me back my Berlin Wall
    Give me Stalin and St Paul
    I have seen ther future
    It is murder

    as an obscure Canadian poet once sang.

    Long live the Con Dems!

  • orangechoc orangechoc

    12 Jul 2010, 10:07PM

    @Eachran
    The ConDems have ring fenced the NHS and rightly in my opinion : demographics require it.

    Japanese in the old days used to send their elders up into the mountains (to die of starvation) to save on food consumption. Demographics require it - why don't just send our elders to the remote islands in Scotland? It should be just as effective. It would have been cheaper, achieve what the ConDems want to achieve, and save on fees spent on consultancy reports purchased from their buddies in the City and costly restructuring in the NHS.

    What da ya think?

  • gailm61 gailm61

    12 Jul 2010, 10:07PM

    Thank God I live in Scotland.

    GPs are self employed and already overpaid.... many want to be business people and accountants.

    This will be disastrous for the English

  • salamandertome salamandertome

    12 Jul 2010, 10:07PM

    Blair started the process by compartmentalising the NHS structure

    It started in the early 1990s with the provider/puchaser split, GP Fundholders and NHS 'Trusts'. I dont remember Blair getting in until 1997: the NHS is better now than it was in 1997, although Blair certainly introduced some private opportunities, such as Treatment Centres and also Foundation Trusts - which were a step in that direction.

  • DebW DebW

    12 Jul 2010, 10:08PM

    This cannot be allowed to happen!

    The NHS isn't perfect but it's pretty darned good

    The Tories will bring disaster, chaos and privatisation!

  • Eachran Eachran

    12 Jul 2010, 10:08PM

    weathereye you are being silly too.

    Targets have been used as a substitute for judgment, not only in the NHS but equally in the education system.

    You need both but pushing down judgments to people best able to make those judgments is the right way to go.

    Frightened to take responsibility are you?

  • Duprez Duprez

    12 Jul 2010, 10:09PM

    Australian healthcare has slipped this way and now a friend of ours has to wait over six months for work to save his eyesight and the real fun is - he has to pay for it.

  • orangechoc orangechoc

    12 Jul 2010, 10:09PM

    @Eachran
    The NHS provides an excellent service for very little cost in comparison to other countries. Perhaps reorganising the system a little would give even better value for money.

    The Payment by Result reorganisation has only been completely put in place in 2007/8 or 2008/9 depending on whether the hospital is a Foundation Trust. Implementing more changes now without leaving it to run in for a few years to observe the good / bad effects would be a crazy thing to do.

  • Duprez Duprez

    12 Jul 2010, 10:10PM

    Australian healthcare has slipped this way and now a friend of ours has to wait over six months for work to save his eyesight and the real fun is - he has to pay for it.

  • princesschipchops princesschipchops

    12 Jul 2010, 10:11PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Eachran Eachran

    12 Jul 2010, 10:11PM

    orangechoc, as a sufferer from CLL I have often wondered if the Japanese method was not a good way of doing things.

    But I suspect that you are being unnecessarily cynical.

    What are you suggesting then, that the NHS should bear its share of cuts : across the board of the whole government expenditure?

  • Eachran Eachran

    12 Jul 2010, 10:12PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • orangechoc orangechoc

    12 Jul 2010, 10:12PM

    @salamandertome

    12 Jul 2010, 10:07PM

    Blair started the process by compartmentalising the NHS structure

    It started in the early 1990s with the provider/puchaser split, GP Fundholders and NHS 'Trusts'. I dont remember Blair getting in until 1997: the NHS is better now than it was in 1997, although Blair certainly introduced some private opportunities, such as Treatment Centres and also Foundation Trusts - which were a step in that direction.

    Yup - another reference point is that GP fundholding was terminated in 1998.

    This ConDem "reorganisation" looks to me a warmed over version of GP Fundholding on a bigger scale.

  • Beesfan Beesfan

    12 Jul 2010, 10:13PM

    What I want to know is this - did the Tories put this plan (and this explicitly) in their manifesto?

    If they did, shame on the press for not exposing the plans.

  • RaceAndClass RaceAndClass

    12 Jul 2010, 10:14PM

    @Eachran

    RaceAndClass, dont be ridiculous.

    The NHS provides an excellent service for very little cost in comparison to other countries. Perhaps reorganising the system a little would give even better value for money.

    Spoken like a true Tory sycophant, part of their viral media team are you? Or are you merely suffering from amnesia?

    The NHS does provide good care at a reasonable;e cost but it won't it these proposals see the light of day.

    Tories = Privatisation = Increased costs,worse services and lack of accountability.

  • RaceAndClass RaceAndClass

    12 Jul 2010, 10:15PM

    @Eachran

    RaceAndClass, dont be ridiculous.

    The NHS provides an excellent service for very little cost in comparison to other countries. Perhaps reorganising the system a little would give even better value for money.

    Spoken like a true Tory sycophant, part of their viral media team are you? Or are you merely suffering from amnesia?

    The NHS does provide good care at a reasonable cost but it won't if these proposals see the light of day.

    Tories = Privatisation = Increased costs,worse services and lack of accountability.

  • teaandchocolate teaandchocolate

    12 Jul 2010, 10:15PM

    It is shame. There were other ways to keep the NHS and make it work more efficiently.

    It seems this recession has given the coalition an opportunity to smother it completely.

    It will be a great loss to the UK if it goes.

  • Brightonik Brightonik

    12 Jul 2010, 10:16PM

    They are privatisating the NHS without daring to put it in their manifesto - it's time to fight! What's that ANC-MK song - see a ConDem, pass me my machine gun....

  • MaggieHTee MaggieHTee

    12 Jul 2010, 10:16PM

    The Banking Crisis was a fundamental wake-up call to all those worshipping at the altar of the Free Markets.

    Two years on, somehow the oligarchs are in power with an assumed mandate to punish the little people for the worst theft and greed of the rich.

    You couldn't make it up .... and now they plan to apply the rigour of the "free" markets to the one bastion of decency that's still left ... the NHS.

  • venerablejohn venerablejohn

    12 Jul 2010, 10:16PM

    genuine question. How are these reforms different from the old internal market and GP fundholders of the last tory government? I only ask because it created a heck of a lot of GP fundholder managers and admin jobs in hospitals to chase up money from unpaid GP bills, etc,etc. Didn't work then, how's it going to work now?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1997/uk_politics/31463.stm

    The internal market was set up eight years ago under the Conservative government. It was an attempt to make the NHS more efficient. The market separated the roles of the purchase and the provision of health care.

    Under the internal market GP fundholders and health authorities buy services from hospital trusts. GP fundholders are doctors who work in general practices and opt for their practice to manage its own funds, rather than be controlled by a local health authority. Some practices remain non-fundholding.

  • Eachran Eachran

    12 Jul 2010, 10:17PM

    RaceAndClass, never been a Tory always been an champagne anarchist but a pragmatic one who likes to get the right answer.

    I dont see it as privatisation, I see it as pushing decisions down to those who are best able to make them. Sounds sensible to me.

  • VoxAC30 VoxAC30

    12 Jul 2010, 10:18PM

    What's the mandate for this experiment? It wasn't in either party's manifesto and it wasn't even in the coalition agreement.

    To me this looks like setting up the NHS to fail.

  • Eachran Eachran

    12 Jul 2010, 10:19PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • NoToTheConDems NoToTheConDems

    12 Jul 2010, 10:21PM

    This is disasterous news for the NHS. It is being Primed for Selling Off.

    The next step for this Government is Full Privatisation. GP's will start off "Purchasing" Care on behalf of their Patients, then I bet the Government will introduce "Private Health Insurance".

    They will sell off the NHS to their friends in the City: Insurance firms and the like to enjoy "Rich Pickings". Corruption and poor quality healthcare will become the norm. Just look at the American Healthcare System: it is Sick in more ways than one.

    The UK really is ConDemed now.

  • GoodVibrations GoodVibrations

    12 Jul 2010, 10:23PM

    Speaking as a doc, I reckon the last 10 years was the best the NHS has been or ever will be, achieved only after record levels of investment which can no longer be sustained. Removal of targets is a smoke screen: not to sacrifice the "parasitic" managers (who account for only 0.5% of the NHS budget), but it allows the government to forego the massive amount of resource that is required to meet them. But without targets you would be left with an NHS as it was some 15 years ago: 10 hour A&E waiting times, 20 hours before being seen by a consultant, 6 months before being seen as an outpatient, patients with heart attacks waiting 2 weeks in DGHs before being transferred to a tertiary centre for an angioplasty etc etc. To avoid this the Lib-Cons are left with little choice to reform the system - it cannot go on the way it has been with the projected levels of funding (to be cut by 20% in London). All staff working in the NHS are aware of the massive waste that goes on on a daily basis and the poor levels of productivity. This is inevitable considering the lack of any incentive or interest to see the institution we work in to succeed financially. Moving to a non-for-profit systrem (as in Germany) would alleviate these problems and is the only cure for an otherwise terminal situation.

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

Comments are now closed for this entry.

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Browse all jobs

jobs by Indeed

Health: best treatments BMJ Group

Read information about the best treatments for 180 common conditions, including: Bronchitis, High cholesterol, High blood pressure.

Search all conditions and treatments:

This information is brought to you by the British Medical Journal in partnership with Guardian.co.uk

Latest news on guardian.co.uk

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop