The government has confirmed it is planning to scrap the NHS Direct telephone service in England and replace it with an alternative service.
Nick Chapman, chief executive of NHS Direct: “The new helpline will be better and more cost effective than NHS Direct” A new 1-1-1 helpline is already being piloted in north-east England.

It was previously reported that the new service may replace NHS Direct, but now the Department of Health has confirmed it will definitely do so.

The move comes as the government curtails public spending, even though it has promised to protect the NHS.

The change will not affect existing NHS helpline services in Scotland and Wales.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley announced the plan to scrap NHS Direct in England during a hospital visit.

NHS Direct currently employs more than 3,000 staff, 40% of whom are trained nurses. It is understood the ratio on the 1-1-1 helpline is “slightly less” in the pilot, but no figures are yet available for what will happen when the scheme is rolled out nationally.

Critics claim the change would undermine the quality of the service by reducing the number of qualified nurses answering calls, but chief executive of NHS Direct Nick Chapman told the BBC the new helpline would be better and more cost effective than NHS Direct.

In June GPs urged the government to get rid of NHS Direct, claiming it was not cost effective.

Roughly 14,000 people a day call NHS Direct for medical advice, with the service costing £123m a year to run.

Dr Peter Carter, chief executive and general secretary of The Royal College of Nursing , said reducing the number of specialist nurses who worked on the new helpline was “short-sighted.”

He said: “We urge the government to consult fully and look at all the evidence before enacting changes which could leave people without expert advice from trained nurses.”

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nhs-direct-to-be-scrapped

Britain’s top GP has launched a scathing attack on widespread reckless public behaviour towards food, alcohol and cigarettes, which he claims is causing growing levels of disease and early death.
In a dramatic intervention in the public health debate, Professor Steve Field criticises parents, mothers-to-be, the very overweight, smokers and drinkers for damaging their own health, or their children’s, through irresponsible actions.

Writing in the Observer, Field, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, backs the controversial call by Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, for Britons to take more responsibility for protecting their health.

“The truth is that too many of us neglect our health, and this is leading to increasing levels of illness and early death,” Field writes. Soaring levels of diabetes, much of it caused by obesity, and the medical consequences of heavy drinking, which are affecting ever-younger people, illustrate this widespread failure, he adds.

Discussion of the harmful medical consequences of ill-advised personal behaviour is curtailed because of its sensitivity, Field argues.

“Too many people do not face up to the hard facts, as they perceive them to be an attack aimed, in particular, at the poorer members of society. But it is impossible to argue on medical or ethical grounds that such behaviour is acceptable.”

While arguing for health prevention to become an individual duty and start at home, Field makes it clear that he does not want people to be left to make lifestyle changes on their own or to see personal responsibility as a total solution. Those who seek to alter their behaviour need continuing NHS and government help, he adds.

“So please don’t take offence if we [GPs] tell you to lose weight or stop smoking or drinking. You need to face facts and take responsibility. Support is out there and it could save your life – and save the NHS a fortune.”

Anne Milton, the public health minister, said greater personal responsibility was vital. Many senior doctors also agreed, but stressed that government action was needed to help create a climate in which people could swap healthy for unhealthy behaviour, such as by monitoring big food companies.

Lansley has alarmed senior doctors by saying the coalition will use much less regulation than Labour did to tackle problems such as obesity and smoking.

GPs seek to help people live healthy lives “but every day we are confronted by the harm caused by smoking, excessive alcohol consumption and the ‘tsunami’ of obesity”, adds Field, the leader of the country’s 40,000 GPs.

Irresponsible parents are damaging their children’s health by smoking around them, feeding them unhealthy food and failing to act as good role models, he says. Mothers and fathers who smoke in cars carrying their offspring – who Field says “are committing a form of child abuse” – and at home in front of their children kill more young people than do accidental injuries.

Parents who give their children unhealthy food, or serve them large portions are storing up huge problems for them, says Field. “Unless parents exert more control over their children’s diets, they are risking a lifetime of health problems, and even premature death – death before their parents, which is almost too sad to contemplate,” he adds.

Parents’ failure to safeguard their children from sunburn and using sunbeds can also lead to them developing skin cancer, he argues. Mothers who smoke while pregnant risk causing their child’s death through cot death syndrome, asthma, lung infections or house fires. Would-be mothers and women who are already expecting need to control their weight because maternal obesity can harm the mother or her baby.

Instead of becoming obese and then asking the NHS to provide liposuction or gastric bands, “it would be better if people didn’t become fat in the first place”, by eating better and exercising more.

Agreeing with Field, Milton said: “We need a new public health movement, owned by everyone, for everyone’s benefit. A movement that transforms the way in which the public’s health is improved, but also revolutionises the way we think about it. As Field points out, personal responsibility is a key part of this.”

However, Milton added: “The government recognises that it cannot force people into behaving in a certain way. But we can help people make informed decisions and ensure that they are enabled and supported to make healthy choices.”

Professor Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, agreed some parents let down their children. “Of course paediatricians agree that people should take responsibility for their own lives. But young children cannot do that. What they eat and the environment they live in are determined by their parents. There is a role for society to protect young children from promotion of unhealthy foods and passive smoking. Would all parents strap young children into a car seat if it was left to choice rather than law?”

He urged a twin-track approach of exhorting parents to care for children well but society also intervening to help by, for example, limiting advertising of unhealthy foods.

Dr John Middleton, vice-president of the UK Faculty of Public Health, said: “A significant amount of ill-health is due to people’s lack of personal responsibility. The NHS would have fewer burdens on it if people were more physically active, cut their alcohol consumption and ate a lower-fat, lower-sugar diet. The government and the NHS cannot do everything. But someone trying to give up smoking will find it easier if they get counselling and nicotine replacement therapy on the NHS, for instance.”

The government had a key role to play in promoting health, as shown by its crackdown on smoking and its fluoridisation of water supplies, said Professor Dinesh Bhugra, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. People who insisted on smoking despite all the warnings about it should retain their freedom to do so, he added.

But Tam Fry, National Obesity Forum spokesman, suggested Field was being naïve. “If Professor Field wants a world where everyone assumes personal responsibility, he is living a dream. He appears to have forgotten the 35-40% of our population who live in the same obesogenic environment as he does but simply can’t cope with it or have long since given up the unequal struggle. They are the people who are quite unequipped to resist the 24/24 battering of junk food promotion and are easy prey for the marketing men.”

However, “certainly the 40% of women entering pregnancy either overweight or obese do so simply because they have never had role model lessons in parenting from either their own mothers or health professionals”, Fry added.

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/public-health-attitudes-leading-gp

Ministers are considering ‘privatising’ an NHS agency that provides 50,000 nurses and other workers to the health service.
An advert has been placed for private sector investment in NHS Professionals, a company owned by the Department of Health, which provides bank staff to fill shifts in the health service.

Unions criticised the plan saying it was privatisation and that NHS Professionals was set up to stop the NHS being ripped off by private agencies charging large sums for staff to work unfilled shifts.

NHS Professionals has 50,000 staff on its books who cover around two million shifts in 77 organisations around England.

Karen Jennings, head of health at Unison, said: “The whole reason that NHS Professionals was set up, was because private agencies were ripping off hospitals by charging them outrageous fees for recruiting or finding staff for shifts. It makes no sense at all to bring back private companies who will want their slice of the action in return.

“This proposal is purely about Tory plans to promote privatisation and hive off parts of the NHS to private companies, regardless of the consequences on patient care.”

A Department of Health spokesman said: “This is about exploring ways that the commercial skills of the independent sector can make NHS Professionals Ltd a more efficient business and save the NHS money.

“NHS Professionals Ltd is a business, not a public service, and like any business it must ensure its services are as efficient and effective as possible. We want to discuss options with potential independent sector investors that could help to achieve this, and ultimately improve services outcomes for patients.”

It comes as the Royal Berkshire Hospital Trust announced up to 600 jobs will be cut to make £60 million worth of savings in the next few years, pledging that frontline staff would not be affected.

The Royal College of Nursing said last month that thousands of NHS jobs were being cut despite Government promises to protect frontline services.

The nurses’ group said it was aware of almost 10,000 posts lost through recruitment freezes, redundancies and people not replaced when they retired, or which face cuts in the future.

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Ministers-accused-of-privatising-NHS-nursing-agency

Tens of thousands of hospital patients were forced to be in mixed sex wards last year despite Labour promises that men and women would be separated, new figures suggest.
The announcement came as the new coalition government revealed that men and women will no longer have to share facilities in English hospitals.

More than eight thousand breaches of Labour’s pledge to “virtually eliminate” mixed wards were reported in just half of England’s Strategic Health Authorities in the first quarter of this year, new figures show.

If the same level existed across the rest of the country it would mean there were more than 16,000 breaches in three months, equating to 64,000 cases a year.

Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, announced yesterday that the “indignity” of men and women sharing accommodation would be abolished, almost 15 years after Tony Blair made the same promise.

But men and women may still have to share wards, provided the hospital ensures that male and female patients sleep in separate areas and have their own washing facilities.

Labour committed in two manifestos to provide separate accommodation for men and women, except where it was in the interests of the patient not to do so.

They later decided to divide wards into same-sex “bays”, meaning same-sex accommodation could include men and women sleeping in separate partitions of the same ward.

But the new figures reveal that one in ten patients is still admitted to a mixed ward, while a third have to share bathrooms with members of the opposite sex.

The information suggests data is not being recorded consistently across the country and NHS organisations are continuing to place patients in mixed sex accommodation for “operational reasons”, the government claimed.

Under new steps announced by Mr Lansley, NHS organisations can be held accountable for failing to guarantee same-sex accommodation where there is no clinical justification.

From next January, any breaches of the guarantee will be reported regularly and commissioners will sanction NHS bodies which admit failing to meet the pledge.

For the first time the reports will be made publicly available, meaning patients receiving elective treatment can choose to avoid the worst-performing hospitals.

Mr Lansley told BBC Radio 4’s PM programme: “It should be more than an expectation, it should be a requirement that patients who are admitted should be admitted to single-sex accommodation.

“Patients should be in single-sex accommodation, meaning that all of their period that they are admitted they should be in a bed or a bay which only consists of people of the same sex.

“And they should be able to come and go, for example to all their washing and toilet facilities, without having to pass through a part of the ward or another ward where there might be people of a different sex… so to that extent they would have the kind of privacy and dignity people have a right to expect.”

He added: “Patients should not suffer the indignity of being cared for in mixed sex accommodation. I am determined to put an end to this practice, where it is not clinically justified.

“In the future, NHS organisations will have clear standards, spelling out when they should report a breach. Where NHS organisations fail to meet this standard, we will let the public know they have failed and we will strengthen the fines which may apply.”

Chief Nursing Officer Christine Beasley added: “Protecting the privacy and dignity of patients by eliminating mixed sex accommodation must be a priority for the NHS.

“Driving this change will be the publishing of statistics on mixed sex accommodation breaches by NHS trusts. This measure will allow patients to make better informed decisions about their care.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Thousands-of-patients-still-forced-to-stay-in-mixed-sex-wards

The Department of Health has spent almost £500 million on management consultants, including deals with firms which have hired senior Labour figures and high ranking civil servants.The disclosure of more than 100 contracts worth a total of £470 million last night engulfed the labour Government in accusations of “cronyism”.

Among those recruited by the favoured firms are a former health minister, an ex-adviser to the health secretary and a senior Whitehall official responsible for encouraging private sector involvement in the NHS.

Doctors’ and nurses’ leaders expressed concern over the use of resources which could have paid for more than 60,000 hip operations, or the annual salary of 22,000 nurses.

Critics also said the revelations indicated that the “revolving door” between the labour Government and its favourite consultant firms was spinning ever more quickly, with former senior politicians, officials and advisers linked to companies profiting directly from the policies they had introduced.

Lord Warner, a Labour peer, who was a health minister until December 2006, now acts as an adviser to PA Consulting group, which received £4.9 million from the Department of Health (DoH) in 2007/8.

Until last December he also advised Deloitte, which received almost £3 million in the same year.

Since resigning as a minister in 2006, the peer has also registered interests working for six other health care, technology and IT firms.

Matthew Swindells, policy adviser to then health secretary Patricia Hewitt between 2005 and 2007, who was earning £195,000 at the DoH, is now group managing director for health at Tribal, which earned more than £2 million from the department in 2007/8.

KPMG, the finance firm, secured £4.9 million in the same year. Last month the firm announced the appointment of Mark Britnell, currently on gardening leave from his £235,000 role as DoH director general for commissioning.

The civil servant was responsible for a policy to encourage more private sector involvement in the health service. He drew up plans which allowed a shortlist of firms – including KMPG – preferential access to lucrative NHS contracts.

Under rules intended to reduce conflicts of interests, Mr Britnell has been told that he cannot lobby the Government for his first nine months in his new job.

Other figures to have crossed from Government to private sector firms which won the management consultancy contracts include Sir Michael Barber, who was Tony Blair’s chief adviser on delivery – focusing on education and health – from 2001 to 2005.

Since September 2005 Sir Michael has been a partner at McKinsey, which was paid £9 million for management consultancy services to the DoH in 2007/8.

Lord Birt, the former BBC director general, was Tony Blair’s strategy adviser from 2000 to 2005. In 2006 he was appointed as an adviser to Capgemini UK, the British arm of the global outsourcing giant.

The DoH figures show that Capgemini UK was paid £3.2 million in 2007/8 for management consultancy to the DoH and the agency running the NHS IT programme.

Information released under the Freedom of Information Act discloses for the first time the details of 111 management consultancy contracts held by the DoH and two of its central agencies.

In total, the DoH, its IT programme Connecting for Health and the NHS Purchasing and Supplies Agency spent £470 million on management consultants in the three years from 2005/6 to 2007/8.

It came after the department had made hundreds of its own staff redundant via an “efficiency programme” intended to save money.

The spending came in addition to an estimated £350 million spent annually on consultants by 150 primary care trusts. Research has shown consultants in the NHS earning up to £2,000 a day for project work.

Matthew Sinclair, from the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “It is particularly alarming that many of these management consultants are political cronies or have only recently finished working for the Department of Health.”

Dr Mark Porter, deputy chairman of the BMA’s consultants committee, said: “These consultants aren’t just taking money from the front line, they are often drawing up policies which in themselves damage patient care.”

Dr Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said: “We are unable to find any evidence about whether this represents good value.”

Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, said: “This lays bare the hypocrisy of Labour’s claims to have cut back on Government administration costs.”

PA Consulting group said Lord Warner’s advisory work for them did not relate to any contracts held with the DoH. Deloitte said the peer’s role as a strategic adviser ran from March to December last year.

Lord Warner said he only began advising PA Consulting in Autumn 2008, and was no longer advising four of the eight companies he has worked for since stepping down as a minister.

He added: “Provided people leave a decent period after they are in office before they take up such posts – which I did – provided they clear it with the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which I did, and provided they register the interest in a public document – which again I did, I don’t think it is right to stop people who were involved in Government forever from working elsewhere. I would defend to the death the right to have a free flow of labour.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Millions-spent-on-NHS-management-consultants-with-Labour-links

The coalition Government ignored scientific advice on the questionable value of homeopathy by continuing to allow the NHS to fund homeopathic treatment despite there being next to no evidence that it works.
Last week, health ministers refused calls from the House of Commons science and technology committee to stop the NHS funding homeopathic treatment on the grounds that such a ban would limit patient choice and contradict the Government’s stated aim of devolving more power to the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) of the NHS.

However, the Government’s own chief scientific adviser, Sir John Beddington, said that he had spoken informally to coalition ministers about his grave concerns about homeopathy and the Department of Health’s policy of allowing it to be prescribed under the NHS.

“I remain of the view that the evidence of efficacy and the scientific evidence base of homeopathy is highly questionable. It is vitally important that the public can make informed choices on their use of homeopathy, so the evidence base must be freely available in an easily-accessible format,” Sir John said.

The Government does not know how many PCTs prescribe homeopathic treatment or how much it costs but the total annual funding is believed to run into millions of pounds.

Earlier this year, the Commons’ science committee recommended that the NHS should stop funding homeopathy on the grounds that it is a waste of money and it gives patients the false impression that such treatment works.

“When the NHS funds homeopathy, it endorses it. Since the NHS Constitution explicitly gives people the right to expect that decision on the funding of drugs and treatments are made ‘following proper consideration of the evidence’, patients may reasonably form the view that homeopathy is an evidence-based treatment,” the select committee’s report said.

In its response to the report, the Government said that it will keep the position on NHS funding under review. “However, we believe that providing appropriate information for patients should ensure that they form their own views regarding homeopathy as an evidence-based treatment,” it said.

Scientists point out, however, that if patients are told clearly that there is no credible evidence to support homeopathic treatments, this may undermine the only benefit that homeopathy is likely to provide, namely the well-established “placebo effect” where someone feels and gets better because they believe a treatment is working.

“Doctors are not allowed to prescribe an honest placebo, even if they think that is the best they can do for the patient. But they are allowed to prescribe a dishonest placebo by referring the patient to a homeopath,” said Professor David Colquhoun, a pharmacologist at University College London.

“Certainly you may feel better after the pill, because you were getting better anyway, or because of the placebo effect. That can’t justify your doctor giving a pill that contains nothing whatsoever,” Professor Colquhoun said.

“If there is no evidence that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect, why does the Government pay for it? The answer given to that is ‘patient choice’. I dare say the patient would cheer up if the NHS paid for a bottle of Chanel No 5,” he said.

Professor Edzard Ernst, a specialist in complementary medicine at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, said: “If the Government is serious about putting patient choice over evidence, it not only displays a profound misunderstanding of both these issues but should then also give cream cakes to diabetics and cigarettes to someone with a lung disease.”

Evan Harris, a former Liberal Democrat MP who sat on the science select committee when it carried out its inquiry, said that the decision to continue NHS funding homeopathy by the Government is not a good start for the health secretary Andrew Lansley.

“How does the Government justify allowing treatments that do not work to be provided by the NHS in the name of choice, when it allows medicines which do work to be banned from NHS use?” Dr Harris said.

From:  http://www.independent.co.uk/government-ignored-our-advice-on-homeopathic-remedies-say-experts

Hospital waiting times have begun to rise again after years of decline following the introduction of European rules on junior doctors’ working hours.Waiting times in the NHS had been dropping since the 1990s but the rules limiting junior doctors to a 48-hour week, which were implemented last August, had reversed the trend.

Thousands more patients were now waiting longer than 18 weeks for surgery because of eu red tape.

Ministers were seeking to renegotiate Britain’s position on the European Working Time Directive, including a possible opt-out for NHS staff. The Royal College of Surgeons carried out the first comprehensive analysis of how the directive had affected waiting times.

According to the research, the proportion of NHS patients having to wait longer than the 18-week target for non-emergency surgery such as hip replacements had almost doubled from 1.5 per cent 18 months ago to nearly three per cent in March this year.

Waiting times reached an all-time low at the end of 2008, with patients waiting just a few weeks for surgery on average.

However, since the EU directive cut junior doctors’ hours from 56 to 48 per week, these gains had been wiped out, the Royal College said.

According to data from the Department of Health, the number of patients waiting longer than 18 weeks — from GP referral to being treated as an inpatient — fell steadily from April 2007, when almost 34,000 people were waiting, to 8,674 in December 2008.

The figure remained stable at about 10,000 until June 2009, just before the new rules came in, when the rise began.

In March this year, it had risen to 17,515, a level last seen in September 2007.

John Black, the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, said the increase was predictable.

“If you have the same number of patients, no more doctors and ask them to work less then it is inevitable that the time available for elective procedures will reduce and waiting lists grow,” he said.

Almost two thirds of consultants now frequently operated without assistants because departments were so stretched.

Mr Black said most European countries had bypassed the legislation by either not monitoring compliance or, as in Germany and Holland, finding ways around the directive.

“We look forward to this happening in the UK,” he said.

Sir Richard Thompson, the new president of the Royal College of Physicians, said the directive had been a “complete disaster” for both patient care and the quality of training for doctors.

“We are not providing the service or the training that we require,” he said. “I cannot overemphasise the damage to service provision and to training.”

According to the survey, 80 per cent of consultant surgeons and two thirds of surgical trainees said patient care had deteriorated since the directive was implemented.

Dr Matt Jameson-Evans, a spokesman for Remedy UK, a junior doctors campaign group, said the impact of the directive on services was inevitable.

“Patients are simply not being treated by as many doctors as before,” he said. “A second consequence of this and equally important is that doctors are not receiving as much training as they were and this has serious implications for the future quality of care.”

The Royal College of Surgeons has argued for an opt-out to allow trainees to work up to 65 hours per week because they were not getting enough practical experience on a 48-hour week.

The Coalition has abolished the 18-week target, saying it was not backed by evidence that it benefited patients.

Dr Mark Porter, the chairman of the British Medical Association’s consultants committee, said the drive for cuts within the NHS was also a factor in the rise in waiting times.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/NHS-waiting-lists-rise-after-doctors-hours-cut

Whistleblowing doctors are being gagged as NHS managers attempt to divert attention away from complaints – as the Patients Association said that the scale of the problem is “deeply worrying”.
Whether it is a complaint about a fellow surgeon botching operations or over a manager distorting waiting times, NHS whistleblowers are meant to be protected by law. They are not allowed to be gagged.

But last night in a joint investigation with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Channel 4 News revealled that doctors are being gagged after they have blown the whistle.

And in a number of cases their reputations are shredded as NHS managers apparently attempt to divert attention from the problem raised in the first place.

In a number of requests made under the Freedom of Information Act we discovered that over the past decade 170 doctors signed a settlement, or compromise, agreement with their trust. We were given 64 heavily redacted contracts to review.

Of those 55 – that is nearly 90 per cent – contained gagging clauses.

The trusts did not tell us if these all involved whistleblowers. But from discussions with doctors and medical law experts, we know that staff who blow the whistle are often asked to sign these confidentiality contracts.

There is a Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) that is meant to be the government’s guarantee to the whistleblower that he or she will not be sacked. An FOI of 400 trusts in England asked how many staff had blown the whistle and gone to an employment tribunal, using PIDA, over the past decade. We were told of 19 members of staff who settled before their cases could be heard.

Again we were told that it is standard practice to include a gagging clause in a settlement agreement. Yet these were, by the very nature of the act they were using to take action against their employers, whistleblowers.

“Gagging clauses have absolutely no place in the NHS when it comes to concerns about patient safety”, a Patients Association spokesman told Channel 4 News.

“No Trusts should be offering them and no healthcare professional should be accepting them if it keeps problems about care kept under wraps. Doctors have a professional duty to raise concerns about patient safety.

“The scale of the problem unearthed by this investigation is deeply worrying. There should be strict rules about the circumstances in which gagging clauses can be used and all of them should be scrutinused by an external independent body with a remit to protect patient safety. The Care Quality Commission could perform such a role.”

“All the protection and legal safeguards in the world won’t reassure staff if they know for the rest of their careers their CV will always be at the bottom of the pile when applying for another job if they speak out.

“Proving that is happening to whistleblowers is next to impossible, so little can be done to protect them from this unofficial victimisation.  Addressing that will take more than just a change in the law or a new set of guidance from the Health Secretary.”

In the Baby P case, a locum at St Ann’s Hospital in north London failed to spot injuries that led to his death. Yet a paediatrician there, Dr Kim Holt, with three colleagues, had earlier raised concerns about the hospital. She was reportedly later offered £120,000 to leave and stay silent, which she refused. The hospital denies that the payoff was an attempt to gag her.

In Wales, Dr Lucy Dawson, was an accident and emergency doctor at Nevill Hall Hospital in Abergavenny for 17 years. Under the trust’s whistleblowing policy, she raised concerns in 2006 about a clinical incident which she believes could have resulted in the loss of a young man’s life.

She brought two sets of proceedings before the employment tribunal, one of which involved her whistleblowing claim and how it was dealt with.

Before either case could be heard, Dr Dawson was offered a payoff but only if she signed an agreement with a gagging clause. She refused.

Dr Dawson’s case is complex, involving a number of issues and allegations on both sides.  But she says this is not just about her.

“I cannot see a reason why, in a public organisation which is funded by taxpayers’ money, why there is not absolute transparency. I cannot think of a single reason why anybody should be paid to keep their mouth shut in the NHS,” she said.

Under another FOI we asked all 225 hospital trusts in England how much they had spent on settlement agreements over the past decade. Of those who responded, only 71 trusts admitted to entering into these agreements, 40 revealed they had spent a total of £3m. In one case, a doctor was paid a quarter of a million pounds. However, a further 31 trusts simply refused to tell us how much they had paid out.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has acknowledged that the scandal of Mid Staffs hospital was allowed to continue because whistleblowers were ignored. One of them was even suspended. The official inquiry report said another whistleblower was given inadequate protection and there was a culture of fear.

Our request for an interview was refused but a Department of Health statement said: “The health secretary has made it clear that patient safety should be at the heart of the NHS and that the improvement of whistleblowing policies is a key part of this.

“He has, therefore, taken action to give teeth to the protection available under the Public Interest Disclosure Act and will reinforce the NHS constitution to make clear rights and responsibilities in respect of whistleblowing.”

But Mr Lansley has also made it clear that he will not be changing the law. Yet all the evidence we have seen is that trusts have been simply ignoring the rules – devastating the careers of doctors, costing the NHS millions. And putting unknown numbers of patients lives at risk.

From:http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/nhs+whistleblowers+apospaid+to+keep+mouth+shut

Controversial US group UnitedHealth, which runs GPs’ practices and advises PCTs in UK reported a 30% leap in profits to $1.1bn.The company recently had to repay $350m to settle a US case in which it was accused of artificially depressing insurance repayments to customers.

A US health insurance company that recently won a multimillion-pound contract to advise primary care trusts (PCTs), has reported a surge in profits over the last three months.

UnitedHealth Group, which also operates five GP practices in Derbyshire and London, reported second-quarter profits climbed 30% on the same quarter a year ago to $1.1bn (£720m) on turnover of $23bn.

The stock market-listed firm said the bulk of its growth came in the United States after it signed up more members for the government-backed Medicare and Medicaid policies.

The company signed a contract with the Department of Health last month to advise PCTs on commissioning ahead of reforms that will give GPs the lion’s share of the NHS budget.

PCTs directly run GP practices and offer contracts to self-employed GP doctors and private firms to operate independent practices. GPs will be in charge of £90bn of the health budget under plans put forward by the health secretary, Andrew Lansley.

UnitedHealth will use its experience of private healthcare to bring efficiencies to the bidding processes.

US unions have complained about the company, which has come under fire for malpractice. In 2008, its former boss William McGuire was banned as a director and forced to repay $468m following a scandal related to backdated stock options.

In January the company agreed to pay $350m to settle a case brought by the New York attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, who accused the firm of boosting profits by artificially depressing insurance repayments to customers.

The company based repayments on “independent” assessments by a company called Ingenix, which was a subsidiary of UnitedHealth.

The company is based in Minnesota, from where it has grown to be the largest health insurer by sales in the US. The company, which has more than 50,000 staff and 60 million health plan customers, is expected to have annual revenues in excess of $80bn this year.

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/20/nhs-health-firm-profits-surge

The NHS is suffering potentially devastating cuts to jobs and patient services as the Government’s austerity drive hits the health service, doctors’ leaders have warned.Thousands of doctors and nurses face being made redundant or not replaced if they leave, while many hospitals have cut treatments, the British Medical Association has found.

Despite ministers’ assurances that the health service would not face the same cuts as other departments, many hospitals are feeling the strain, according to the BMA.

Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, has boasted that frontline services would be protected. But it emerged yesterday that in his Cambridge constituency, Addenbrooke’s Hospital is planning to sack 170 nurses and up to 500 staff in total over the next year.

A survey for the BMA asked 361 doctors, who between them represent committees at all of Britain’s hospital trusts and some larger primary care trusts, how the NHS was being affected by the demand to make £20billion of cuts.

It comes as the Coalition faces political pressure to reverse its pledge to ring-fence health spending.

The BMA found that 43 per cent of those who responded said there was a freeze on recruiting doctors and nurses at their trust. Almost as many, 40 per cent, said that patient treatments, including varicose vein operations and blood tests, were being rationed.

GPs in Bedfordshire said they had been told not to refer patients with certain conditions, such as skin lesions and cysts, to hospitals except in exceptional circumstances.

Nearly a quarter of those who responded said that their trust was planning to make workers redundant. Although the majority of these would not affect frontline staff, the union warned that cuts to administrative workers could force doctors and nurses to spend more time on these duties and less time with patients.

The poll – to which 92 doctors responded – represents the first real evidence of how the NHS has been hit by the cuts. It found trusts were trying to make annual savings of six per cent on average. The Government has promised to guarantee NHS spending growth in real terms but the BMA says this will be “minimal”. The association called the cuts potentially “devastating”.

Dr Hamish Meldrum, the chairman of the BMA, said: “Whilst we accept that difficult decisions need to be taken in this tight financial climate, there is a real danger that cutting back on health now will have a long-lasting impact on our ability to maintain high-quality, comprehensive and universal care in the future.”

The warning came as senior Tories broke ranks to object to plans to protect health service funding.

Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, and Nadine Dorries, a Tory member of the Commons health select committee, said that health funding should not be ring-fenced.

Ms Dorries told the BBC’s Politics Show: “I think we need to find the political courage to accept that there is excessive waste in the NHS and that it’s unfair to expect other departments to take all the hits.”

The Royal College of Nursing said earlier this year that about 5,600 jobs were under threat across 26 hospital trusts. In a “worst case scenario”, the true figure could be as high as 30,000, it said.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “Alongside all the public services, the NHS will need to deliver significant savings over the coming years.

“The department is very clear that savings should be implemented in a way that does not affect the quality of services and the Secretary of State has been very clear that every penny saved will be reinvested back into patient care.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/NHS-suffering-devastating-cuts-to-jobs-and-services-warns-BMA