NHS must keep taking the tablets- Financial Times Editorial
The Financial Times last week criticised labour's health services incompetent U Turn. Health Direct reproduces the Editorial below.
A patient who is feeling better can readily – and wrongly – believe it is not worth finishing the course of medicine, especially if it tastes nasty.
In the same way, it is a mistake to think that the role of the private sector in improving the National Health Service can be cut back now that some benefits are already evident. Yet Alan Johnson, health secretary, is on the brink of slashing plans to extend private sector involvement in treatment centres and diagnostic services. This would be an unwelcome retreat.
Private sector companies had been expecting the award of business worth £700m a year from this second wave of big central contracts. Instead, it looks as though the schemes going ahead will be worth less than half that, and may total as little as £200m.
The adverse effects of this reduction go well beyond the compensation that the government will have to pay for cancelling so late.
The argument is not really about the details of each contract up for decision. It is about the broader impact on public healthcare of such a significant scaling back of private sector work.
In the years when Tony Blair was pursuing market-like reforms for the health service, he had a dual purpose in involving the private sector. He wanted to increase capacity and also to challenge NHS hospitals so they would perform more strongly.
This meant the drive to include the private sector had to come from Whitehall and was often resented at local level because it caused disruption.
The success to date in both aims should not disguise the animosity that has accompanied it. As a result, if ministers do not push the role of the private sector in the NHS, there is little chance that anyone will call on private companies.
This matters, because it is too soon to be sure that public sector healthcare will hold on to the benefits already gained if competition from the private sector fades away.
Shrinking the scale of private sector NHS contracts also makes businesses warier about engaging in this activity. The first wave of contracts was also smaller than initially expected. So private sector contractors are surely pricing into their bids the prospect that the health service will be an unreliable customer.
Even more worrying for the government, they may decide that their time and money is better spent elsewhere entirely. This would mean that there was not a flourishing private sector to act as a force for change at primary care level. For a lasting benefit to the NHS, the dose of competition needs to be stepped up, not scaled down.
From:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/729db8cc-9236-11dc-8981-0000779fd2ac.html
A patient who is feeling better can readily – and wrongly – believe it is not worth finishing the course of medicine, especially if it tastes nasty.
In the same way, it is a mistake to think that the role of the private sector in improving the National Health Service can be cut back now that some benefits are already evident. Yet Alan Johnson, health secretary, is on the brink of slashing plans to extend private sector involvement in treatment centres and diagnostic services. This would be an unwelcome retreat.
Private sector companies had been expecting the award of business worth £700m a year from this second wave of big central contracts. Instead, it looks as though the schemes going ahead will be worth less than half that, and may total as little as £200m.
The adverse effects of this reduction go well beyond the compensation that the government will have to pay for cancelling so late.
The argument is not really about the details of each contract up for decision. It is about the broader impact on public healthcare of such a significant scaling back of private sector work.
In the years when Tony Blair was pursuing market-like reforms for the health service, he had a dual purpose in involving the private sector. He wanted to increase capacity and also to challenge NHS hospitals so they would perform more strongly.
This meant the drive to include the private sector had to come from Whitehall and was often resented at local level because it caused disruption.
The success to date in both aims should not disguise the animosity that has accompanied it. As a result, if ministers do not push the role of the private sector in the NHS, there is little chance that anyone will call on private companies.
This matters, because it is too soon to be sure that public sector healthcare will hold on to the benefits already gained if competition from the private sector fades away.
Shrinking the scale of private sector NHS contracts also makes businesses warier about engaging in this activity. The first wave of contracts was also smaller than initially expected. So private sector contractors are surely pricing into their bids the prospect that the health service will be an unreliable customer.
Even more worrying for the government, they may decide that their time and money is better spent elsewhere entirely. This would mean that there was not a flourishing private sector to act as a force for change at primary care level. For a lasting benefit to the NHS, the dose of competition needs to be stepped up, not scaled down.
From:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/729db8cc-9236-11dc-8981-0000779fd2ac.html
Labels: health direct, ISTC, Labour shambles, Labour waste, NHS fiasco
posted by Dr Search- Principal Consultant at the Search Clinic at
8:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home