The declining role of GPs in maternity care is leading to some pregnant women feeling “abandoned” by the system, a leading think-tank has claimed.
Often expectant mothers do not know who to turn to if they suffer health problems during pregnancy, according to The King’s Fund.

Although family doctors frequently know a woman’s medical history best, their role in pregnancy care has become sidelined in recent decades, found the authors of the report, The role of GPs in maternity care – what does the future hold?

The King’s Fund concluded that GPs’ role in maternity care had “all but disappeared over the past 30 years, with recent policy and guidance omitting any reference to their role in caring for pregnant women”.

“Under the terms of the new GP contract introduced in 2004, GPs are no longer paid for each pregnant woman they look after,” it noted.

“In addition, many GPs have opted out of providing out-of-hours care, resulting in sick pregnant women going to A&E with pregnancy-related problems – or simply not knowing what to do if they are ill.”

Nick Goodwin, director of the Fund’s GP Inquiry, said such care was increasingly dealt with by specialists, which had led to a less connected service for pregnant women.

He said: “As a result of that you get reports that some mothers feel a bit abandoned at the beginning of their pregnancy. Who is looking after them?”

Sometimes pregnant women’s other health needs – like mental health issues and obesity – were not being dealt with, he said.

“More needs to be done to make sure that the whole person is treated.”

The report proposed that GPs should now take “a more active role”.

Anna Dixon, lead author of the report and director of policy at The King’s Fund, said: “It is right that those with specialist skills, such as midwives and obstetricians, take the lead role in caring for pregnant women but GPs have a vital role to play in pre-conception and shared ante-natal and post-natal care.”

The report has been widely welcomed by GPs’ groups.

Dr Laurence Buckman, chairman of the BMA’s GPs Committee, said: “GPs want to be more involved in maternity care because they see it as an important part of their job.”

Prof Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, welcomed the “timely” report, saying it made “a very compelling case for GPs to play a more central role”.

However, Belinda Phipps chairman of the National Childbirth Trust, which campaigns for less medical intervention during pregnancy and birth, said it would be better to “actively promote midwife-led care to women”.

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Pregnant-women-feel-abandoned-by-NHS

The NHS in England faces a total bill of £65bn for new hospitals built under the private finance initiative (PFI)- six times more than the buildings cost.
Figures obtained by the BBC show that some NHS trusts are spending more than 10 percent of their turnover on the annual ”mortgage” repayments.

Under PFI, private companies win contracts to build and maintain new hospitals and mental health units and the NHS pays off the ”mortgage” over around 30 years.

The 103 schemes were valued at a total of £11.3bn when they were built.

But when rising fees and additional costs such as maintenance, cleaning and catering are taken into account, the NHS will have to pay back £65.1bn over the lifetime of the schemes. Some contracts are reportedly so restrictive that trusts are forced to pay hundreds of pounds just to get half a dozen pictures put up.

According to the data, the NHS currently pays back a total of £1.25bn each year but this figure is expected to increase until 2030 when it will hit £2.3bn, the BBC reported.

The final payment will not be made until 2048.

Professor John Appleby, chief economist at the King’s Fund health think-tank, said: ”It is a bit like taking out a pretty big mortgage in the expectation your income is going to rise, but the NHS is facing a period where that is not going to happen.”

Dr Mark Porter, of the British Medical Association, added: ”Locking the NHS into long-term contracts with the private sector has made entire local health economies more vulnerable to changing conditions.

”Now the financial crisis has changed conditions beyond recognition, so trusts tied into PFI deals have even less freedom to make business decisions that protect services, making cuts and closures more likely.”

Nigel Edwards, director of policy at the NHS Confederation, which represents trusts, told the BBC: ”They were planned for a different world. I’m sure that in some cases people feel their hands are tied.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/NHS-facing-65bn-mortgage-bill-for-PFI

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

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

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

The gap between average life expectancy and that of the poorest in England is widening despite efforts to close it, a National Audit Office report says.
Life expectancy is now 77.9 years for men and 82 years for women but in poor areas it falls to 75.8 and 80.4 years.

The NAO says this means that from 1995-97 to 2006-08 the life expectancy gap grew by 7% for men and 14% for women.

It is calling for more investment to help GPs tackle problems like smoking and poor diet in poor communities.

The NAO says the figures mean a Labour government target to reduce the difference in life expectancy by 10% by 2010 is unlikely to be met.

Its report says it is not possible to show how much money has been spent on tackling health inequalities, as primary care trusts (PCTs) are not allocated specific funding for the task.

But it says that at present the system “does not provide enough of an incentive” to encourage family doctors to focus on the neediest groups in their practices.

The report says it would not cost “a large amount of money” – £24m a year – to take key actions which would improve health in deprived areas.

These include increasing the prescribing of drugs to reduce cholesterol and control blood pressure, and doubling the capacity of services which help people quit smoking.

The report contrasts that amount with the £3.9bn spent by PCTs in the poorest areas on treating circulatory and respiratory illness.

Life expectancy for everyone in England improved under Labour, and now stands at almost 78 years for men and 82 years for women.
MORTALITY RATES FELL SLOWEST IN THE PRIMARY CARE TRUSTS OF:
* Salford
* Bolton
* Middlesbrough
* Blackburn with Darwen
* Hartlepool
* Bradford
* Oldham
* Nottingham City
* Sandwell
* Ashton, Leigh and Wigan
* Leicester City
* Hull
* Blackpool

But the improvement rate has been slower in the most deprived communities, and currently the equivalent figures are 75.8 years for men and 80.4 years for women.

Analysis also showed that success rates in stop-smoking programmes were lower in the poorest communities than in other areas.

A spokesman for the British Medical Association, which has just concluded its annual conference, said: “We are disappointed that today’s report says that the Department of Health will not meet its target to reduce the health inequalities gap.

“At our meeting, the BMA passed a motion calling on the government to increase expenditure on prevention services to reduce health inequalities.

“It is particularly important to do this in early years to give every child the best start in life. We will also lobby for fiscal policies to narrow the income gap between the poorest and the richest in society. Doctors believe it is necessary to take this action to tackle health inequalities.”

From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/10475835.stm

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee said using public money on the highly-diluted homeopathy remedies could not be justified.
The cross-party group said there was no evidence beyond a placebo effect, when a patient gets better because of their belief that the treatment works.

But manufacturers and supporters of homeopathy disputed the report, saying the MPs had ignored important evidence.

It is thought about £4m a year is spent on homeopathy by the NHS, helping to fund four homeopathic hospitals in London, Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow and numerous prescriptions.

Homeopathy is a 200-year-old system of treatment that uses highly diluted substances – sometimes so none of the original product is left – that are given orally in the belief that it will stimulate the body’s self-healing mechanism.

Supporters believe the remedies help relieve a range of minor ailments from bruising and swelling to constipation and insomnia.

But the MPs said homeopathy was basically sugar pills that only worked because of faith. In medicine it is recognised that some people will get better because they believe the treatment they take is going to work.

The MPs said the NHS should not fund treatments on this basis. They argued the effectiveness was often unpredictable and involved a deception by the medical establishment.

They also warned it could lead to a delay in diagnosis if symptoms were cured but the underlying reason for them was not tackled.

The MPs also criticised the drugs regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, for allowing medical claims to be made.

The bar for licensing for homeopathic remedies is not set as high as for medical treatments, partly because they have been used since the NHS was set up in 1948 before the current system of regulation was brought in.

Committee chairman Phil Willis said this approval and the fact they were funded by the NHS in the first place lent the remedies “a badge of authority that is unjustified”.

But the report acknowledged there was a public appetite for homeopathy with surveys showing satisfaction rates of above 70%.

The British Medical Association said it was concerned about NHS funds being used on homeopathy and called for an official review into its effectiveness.

From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8524926.stm

Doctors’ leaders are demanding curbs on the boom in private screening clinics offering services ranging from simple blood pressure checks to full body scans costing more than £1,000.
Patients are being exploited by “irresponsible” marketing of private health screening tests, the British Medical Association and the Academy of Royal Medical Colleges say in a letter to health secretary Andrew Lansely.

Screening tests can harm in two ways. First, there’s the positive result that triggers further investigation and treatment but which turns out to be a false alarm, thus subjecting the individual to unnecessary anxiety and pain. And second, there’s the negative result that lulls the individual into a false sense of security – until the disease that has been lurking undetected strikes.

In a joint statement, Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the BMA and Professor Sir Neil Douglas, chairman of the Academy, warn that there are “significant risks” with direct-to-consumer tests. They say private companies are highlighting the benefits of screening while ignoring or playing down the risks.

“Many are unreliable and inaccurate. Patients may be falsely reassured, or undergo unnecessary and sometimes invasive follow-up tests and treatments. Unnecessary procedures may have long-term or permanent complications. These problems often create unnecessary burdens for mainstream NHS services.”

The statement does not mention specific tests but one that is widely promoted is a blood test for prostate cancer which measures the level of prostate specific antigen (PSA).

Research shows that seven in 10 men with a high reading will not have cancer. Worse, two in 100 with a low reading will have significant cancer. So a lot of men will get treatment they don’t need, and some will not get treatment they do.

For those with a high reading, the next stage is a biopsy. This is a painful procedure in which a hollow needle is inserted into the gland close to the rectum and a sample of tissue removed to be examined for the presence of malignant cells.

As the PSA level is a poor predictor of prostate cancer, there is no NHS screening programme. Men are advised to be tested only if they have symptoms, such as difficulty urinating, or a family history of the cancer.

If cancer is found, it may lead to surgery – with its risks – followed by radiotherapy and chemotherapy, which have side effects. But the cancer may not need treating. Prostate cancer is often slow-growing, and many men die with it rather than from it. For them, screening and treating the cancer brings pain and anxiety – and no health benefit.

In the case of whole body scans, sometimes marketed as the “ultimate health check” or “health MOT” for a milestone birthday at 40, 50 or 60, the promise is that it can offer more accurate checks than are usually carried out by old-fashioned family doctors.

The problem is that most scans throw up abnormalities – and if the patient is paying £1,000-plus they are unlikely to feel satisfied with a report that says simple “all’s well”. The clinic may feel under pressure to highlight any abnormalities.

But distinguishing those that are benign from those that indicate serious disease is often difficult. The risk is instead of bringing extra years of life the scans will bring years of anxiety.

In their letter Dr Meldrum and Professor Douglas call on the government to introduce tougher regulations on the marketing of private screening tests to ensure it is factual and balanced. They say clinics must include information on the risks and limitations of the tests, the implications of the results, the procedures not included in the price and the evidence of health benefit.

Dr Meldrum said: “Some private companies are taking advantage of vulnerable people by claiming the health screening they offer will detect diseases early or reduce an individual’s risk of developing specific illnesses.

“However, the NHS has safeguards in place to ensure the public can be confident the tests are supported by sound research evidence. This ensures that anyone having a test is aware of the benefits, risks and limitations involved.

“Such safeguards often do not exist in the private sector which makes it impossible for people to distinguish between private testing services that may do some good, and those that are of no value or potentially harmful.”

Professor Douglas said: “There are significant risks with direct-to-consumer tests. Many are unreliable and inaccurate. Patients may be falsely reassured, or undergo avoidable and invasive follow-up tests and treatments.

“Unnecessary procedures may have long-term or permanent complications which can place a burden on the NHS.”

From: http://www.independent.co.uk/the-1631000-body-scans-that-ought-to-come-with-a-health-warning

NHS Hospital waiting times have been relaxed or scrapped as part of a drive by the new Government to rid the NHS of Labour’s ‘target culture’.

Nursing and doctors’ leaders welcomed the greater flexibility they have been given to treat patients according to clinical need rather than being forced to stick to strict central guidelines.

But patients’ groups expressed concern that the reforms could result in a “free-for-all,” and that without targets long waiting times could return to the NHS.

GPs will no longer be forced to see patients within 48 hours of them seeking an appointment.

The requirement for 98 per cent of patients attending Accident and Emergency wards to be seen within four hours has been relaxed to 95 per cent.

And the target for patients to be given a hospital appointment within 18 weeks of being referred by their GP has been abandoned altogether.

Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, insisted that people would still have the right to demand high levels of service from the NHS, but that this would be done locally rather than dictated from the centre.

“I want to free the NHS from bureaucracy and targets that have no clinical justification and move to an NHS which measures its performance on patient outcomes,” he added.

“Doctors will be free to focus on the outcomes that matter – providing quality patient care.”

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: “The targets focused minds in the NHS, made people start realising services had to get better.”

But Dr Laurence Buckman, Chairman of the BMA’s GPs Committee, welcomed the relaxation in targets.

He said: “Patients should have good access to GPs. However, while this target may have been intended to improve access it has in fact had adverse consequences.

“At the moment practices need to have enough appointments available on the day or the following day to meet the target, so those who want to book in advance find there are fewer appointments available.”

Under the changes to the NHS Operating Framework, Mr Lansley has also ordered health bodies to reduce management costs from £1.85 billion to £1 billion by 2013.

While spending on the health service will continue at current levels, he said it was crucial to make “immediate” savings which could be reinvested in patient care.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/NHS-waiting-times-are-relaxed-and-abandoned

NHS Hospitals will face financial penalties if patients are readmitted as an emergency within 30 days of being discharged, under new government plans.
The scheme was unveiled yesterday by Andrew Lansley, in his first major speech as the new health secretary.

Hospitals in England will be paid for initial treatment but not paid again if a patient is brought back in with a related problem, he said.

It has been argued that patients are being discharged early to free up beds.

The Conservatives have said cuts to the number of hospital beds under Labour put pressure on NHS staff to discharge people without support.

Between 1998-99 and 2007-08, the number of emergency readmissions in England rose from 359,719 to 546,354. But there was also a significant rise in the number of procedures performed over the same time period.

Readmissions as a percentage of all patient discharges went up marginally, from 8% in 1998-99 to 10.5% in 2007-08.

Speaking about his vision for the NHS, Mr Lansley called for patients to be given more control over their healthcare.

And he said hospitals would have the responsibility of looking after patients’ health and well-being for up to a month after they are discharged.

Currently primary care trusts and GPs look after patients once they are discharged from hospital.

Under the new plans hospitals would receive funding for the first hospital stay plus treatment for the patient’s first 30 days after discharge.

Mr Lansley promised to “empower patients as well as health professionals” and “disempower the hierarchy and the bureaucracy”.

He said: “We need a cultural shift in the NHS. From a culture responsive mainly to orders from the top-down, to one responsive to patients, in which patient safety is put first.

This change of direction will send a ripple through hospital managers with some enterprising chief executives will see it as a chance for hospitals to extend their services into the community.

If they are to provide extra follow up care, and bear the cost of unavoidable complications, hospitals will be hoping to see that reflected in the price they are paid for each operation.

England is unique in the UK in paying its hospitals for each treatment they carry out, a system called payment by results.

This will be the main lever which the Health Secretary can use to change the incentives in the system.

He said that targets focused on processes, data returns and more Department of Health circulars would not achieve these aims.

“Over the last ten years emergency readmissions have increased by 50 percent. Not, it seems, primarily because patients were more frail, but because hospitals have been incentivised to cut lengths of stay and send patients home sooner – process targets creating risks for patients.

“So in addition to getting rid of these targets – we’re going to ensure that hospitals are responsible for patients not just during their treatment but also for the 30 days after they’ve been discharged. It will be in the interests of the hospital for patients to be discharged only when they are ready and safe.”

And if a patient is readmitted within that time the hospital will not receive any additional payment for the additional treatment – they will be focused on successful initial treatment, he said.

Nigel Edwards, policy director of the NHS Confederation, which represents most NHS trusts, said the proposal to withhold money for readmissions was a good idea.

“The principle of offering this, as long as we don’t have hospitals getting in the way of GP care, is a perfectly sensible one and certainly one we see in other countries.”

Dr Anna Dixon of the King’s Fund said readmissions can occur because of a lack of proper care provision in the community. And she warned that abolishing targets might lead to a rise in hospital waiting times.

The British Medical Association’s Dr Hamish Meldrum agreed saying: “This could result in patients being kept in hospital longer than necessary, when it might be better for them to be at home.

“We should remember that there can be a range of reasons that a patient is readmitted, many of them beyond the control of the hospital.”

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: “We have always campaigned for patient safety to be at the forefront of services and withholding payment to fix poor outcomes and giving patients more information to help them make informed decisions about their care are significant steps towards this.

“We welcome a much greater emphasis on the patient experience and a focus on patient needs and helping patients play a bigger role in shaping their health service.”

From : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/10262344.stm