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

The NHS spends up to £86m a year on thousands of websites that are difficult to find, confusing for patients and which do not meet their needs, according to research commissioned for a Department of Health report.
Research for the NHS Digital Communications Review, conducted by communications agency Precedent and leaked to the Health Service Journal, found 2,873 nhs.uk websites that were in use and more than 1,000 other nhs.uk sites that were no longer active. A total of 287,300 web pages were accessible and Google listed 56 million pages within the nhs.uk domain.

The researchers concluded that the public would appreciate fewer contact points online but the digital communications review said there was not sufficiently strong evidence that there were too many NHS domains.

Instead the review said there was a need for a digital brand strategy with standards for all NHS sites. It said a central information role was “sound in principle but its adoption requires a general acceptance that it is the role of the centre to perform this organising function.”

EHI understands that the researchers suggested that the NHS may be spending too little on too many websites rather than too much.

The Precedent researchers said that two of most recognised health service websites, NHS Choices and NHS Direct, were often competing for attention and although NHS Choices focuses on health information and local service data and NHS Direct offers online diagnostic tools the differences in content between the two was not clear to patients.

They added: “NHS Choices and NHS Direct are both established as national sites with similarities of positioning, brand and audience. This confuses users about the ‘definitive’ access point for NHS information and the roles of each site.”

Research for the review also concluded that GP practices websites were also the weakest of the health service’s online offerings.

It added: “GP surgeries have by far and away the poorest sites, in that they have the largest percentage of problems identified. GP sites failed to provide the means to allow interaction with users.”

The researchers found that overall the NHS was failing to meet patients’ needs for online functionality such as online appointment booking, repeat prescription requesting, test result reporting and contact via email. Only 50.3% of sites included email addresses. “The NHS is not making itself easy to do business with,” the report said.

The research is also critical of the accessibility of websites and said that vulnerable members of the public were not been catered for with 30% of sites exhibiting at least one “notable deficit in standards” which might cover poor quality content, lack of NHS branding, poor navigation or out of date content.

The researchers said it was very difficult to estimate the cost to the NHS of the websites with responses to information on usage and cost received from only 188 out of 4,121 sites. However it estimated that the cost of running the sites “could be as high as £86m per year” and said costs could be higher as those figures did not include set up costs.

The digital review, however, said no broad conclusions could be drawn about value for money “given the relatively low cost of establishing and operating small, focused websites.”

The researchers claimed the public “struggled to locate the NHS online with a Google search” when searching on health-related terms and said the scale and depth of information on offer was daunting to many. It said patients also often ended up going to information offered by Wikipaedia, the charity sector and websites such as NetDoctor and PatientUK rather than the NHS.

The researchers said interviews with users revealed that the public wanted to see “one NHS” online which would tally with their perception that they were receiving care from “one NHS”.

The Department of Health said the white paper had outlined the government’s plan to being about an NHS information revolution to give people access to comprehensive, trustworthy and easy to understand information. Information on how this will be achieved is to be set out in the DH’s information strategy, due to be published in the autumn.

From: http://www.e-health-insider.com/nhs_%C3%82%C2%A386m_website_spend_confusing

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

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 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

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 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 Royal College of GPs says thousands of new health visitors whom the government plans to recruit should not solely be placed in children’s centres.
Over 4,000 more health visitors have been promised in England, focused in Sure Start centres.

GPs say there is already a breakdown in communication with health visitors who work in the centres, and placing more there would make it worse.

But children’s charities say parents need a more informal approach.

Health visitors have usually worked out of GPs’ surgeries – but the growth of Sure Start children’s centres has seen more moving to them.

The children’s charity 4children says having health visitors based in these centres means there is less need for mothers to use GPs’ surgeries for non-urgent problems and advice.

The Royal College of GPs says its members are seeing a worrying pattern developing, where vital information is not being passed back to them.

It says GPs need to be more actively involved in the the care of mothers during and after their pregnancy, and health visitors have to link in more with GP practices.

Professor Steve Fields of the Royal College of GPs said: “Mums-to-be are not getting the service they could have had five or 10 years ago.

“It is an unintended consequence of children’s centres being established and health visitors moving out of GPs’ surgeries and GPs not being as actively involved the care of mums-to-be during their pregnancy.

From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10423346.stm

A policymaker’s dream. A pragmatist’s nightmare. That has to be the verdict on Andrew Lansley’s white paper “Liberating the NHS”, published on Monday.

In one sense it aims to complete the work of the last Conservative government – and much that the Blairites also wanted for the health service. The last Tory government tried to free NHS hospitals from direct management by health authorities.

It aimed to get GPs to buy patient care. And it briefly attempted to absolve ministers from responsibility for the day-to-day management of the NHS by creating a short-lived ministerial supervisory board with an NHS executive beneath it.

But it rapidly got cold feet over the likely impact of the quasi-market it had created, fearing the destruction it would cause would be anything but creative.

Labour, having first ditched much of this, recreated it earlier in the decade in a far more sophisticated form – with independent regulation and inspection and a tariff for NHS care that, in theory at least, encouraged purchasers to put quality above price.

It never quite sorted out who should do the purchasing – primary care trusts or GPs, who have been running a form of practice-based commissioning that, in most places, has been severely constrained.

But had the Blairite plans come to fruition, the purchasing of care would by now have been separated from its provision. All hospitals by 2008 would have been self-governing institutions, positioned part way between the public and private sectors.

Primary care trusts would have been solely commissioners, while their district nursing teams and therapists and community hospitals would now be independently run, either on a foundation trust model, or as social enterprises, or contracted out to the private and voluntary sectors.

There would also have been a more vibrant public/private/voluntary market from which purchasers could buy all sorts of care, with patients being able to choose between them.

What Labour – or more accurately Tony Blair and Alan Milburn, then health secretary – wanted is what Mr Lansley now aspires to create: a self-improving system run as a regulated market of competing providers driven by patient choice and commissioning in a way that no longer needs direct management from politicians and the health department.

From there, the step to an independent commissioning board, with ministers doing little other than continuing to raise the money for the NHS, setting its broad priorities, and then holding the board to account, would have been seen as an interesting evolution, not a revolution.

But the NHS is a long way from that. The Blairite reforms first slowed, then under Gordon Brown, pretty much stalled.

Half of hospitals are still directly managed and a chunk will never pass the financial viability test to become foundation trusts. PCT provider arms have still to be sorted out. Social enterprise in the NHS barely exists. Private suppliers have yet to demonstrate convincingly that they can consistently do things better and more cheaply than the NHS. And the best GP commissioners are still relative beginners.

Yet in a dirigiste decision that smacks more of old Labour central direction than anything else, the Conservative health secretary has decided not to allow GP commissioning to evolve into something demonstrably strong and effective but to require that all GPs – whether willing or not – do the job or acquiesce in their colleagues doing it for them. All in one big bang.

Mr Lansley’s plans amount to an NHS revolution. Virtually no part of the service will be untouched by his announcements on Monday, which aim, in barely three years, not just to complete Labour’s unfinished business but to go much further.

Issues Labour grappled with unsuccessfully, however, remain unanswered.

What, for instance, are the failure regimes for the new arrangements? And thousands of managers whose jobs are to go are expected to retain financial control throughout the upheaval while helping GPs take on their new role. The odds are many will bail out while they have the chance.

As Sir David Nicholson, the NHS chief executive, said on Monday: “The clarity of the vision is all very well. The big issue is how do we manage the transition.” With immense difficulty, is the answer. Mr Lansley, a man with a plan in a hurry, risks losing both financial control and performance.

From: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f3bc0e4-8def-11df-9153-00144feab49a.html

GPs and Doctors are to be given sole responsibility for overseeing front line care to patients under Coalition plans described as the biggest revolution in the NHS since its foundation 60 years ago.
About £80 billion will be distributed to family GPs in a move that will see strategic health authorities and primary care trusts scrapped.

The plan, contained in a white paper to be published this week, is designed to place key decisions about how patients are cared for in the hands of doctors who know them.

Tens of thousands of administrative jobs in the health service will be lost as a result.

At present, funds are given by the Government to primary care trusts, which pay for patients from their area to be treated in hospital.

Under these plans, GPs — who are currently not responsible for paying for hospital referrals — would receive the money instead and pay the hospitals directly.

The Coalition hopes the new system will be less bureaucratic and give doctors and patients more control over treatment.

GPs will also have to organise out-of-hours services, which may see family doctors offering 24-hour care once again.

The decision represents a victory for Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary. He has been backed by David Cameron in his fight with the Treasury over his decision to give taxpayers’ cash directly to doctors.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, raised serious concerns about putting such a vast sum of money, thought to be between £60 and £80 billion, back in the hands of GPs.

Health spending has been ring-fenced by the Coalition and will not be subject to the severe cuts that will hit other Whitehall departments.

However, it is understood that Mr Osborne has been assured by Mr Lansley that there will be safeguards in place to ensure GPs do not “waste” the money.

The acting chief executive of the NHS Confederation, Nigel Edwards, warned that the changes will be difficult to implement: “In transition to this new system there are some quite significant risks,” he said.

“Obviously it is going to take time to implement this and the PCTs at the moment are the people who keep the lid on the performance and financial management of the system.”

The move to scrap the 150 primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, which cover a range of NHS trusts and supervise local NHS services, will come as a shock to Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs.

The Coalition agreement explicitly vowed to “stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS that have got in the way of patient care”.

Rather than talking about scrapping trusts, the document explained the role they would continue to play.

However, Mr Lansley will point to the commitment in the joint Tory-Lib Dem document which states: “We will strengthen the power of GPs as patients’ expert guides through the health system by enabling them to commission care on their behalf.”

Commentators are calling the changes “the most revolutionary in the NHS since 1948”. Mr Lansley hopes to have the changes in place by next April, although NHS managers believe that may be over-ambitious. Under the reforms, primary care trusts will not be scrapped immediately, but will be phased out as power is passed to doctors.

A new contract which makes GPs more accountable is likely to be part of the package of measures included in the white paper.

Responsibility will be handed to GPs working in local groups, who will commission services or provide them by working in rotas through co-ops. Mr Lansley believes that if GPs are responsible for their own budgets and have to commission out-of-hours care, most will decide to go back to offering weekend and evening cover themselves or in local groups.

The loss of jobs, which The Daily Telegraph has been told will run into tens of thousands, is also likely to lead to outcry from public sector trade unions. Ministers are already braced for industrial action over plans for severe cuts in the Whitehall workforce.

The fierce dispute over the plans has led to a delay in the publication of the white paper. However, it has been resolved in the past 48 hours.

A source said: “In the end, the Prime Minister clearly said to George Osborne that this was not one he should go to war on.”

Handing over so much power to GPs will revive memories of reforms by the last Conservative government to give control back to the local level through GP fund-holding. Labour, under Tony Blair, attempted a similar plan but fell short.

However, a senior government source told The Daily Telegraph last night that the Coalition’s attempt will succeed because of the political will behind it.

The source said: “GP fund-holding was voluntary. This is going to be compulsory. This is pushing through the whole lot of policy that either Tory or Labour governments have tried in the NHS’s history but have never gone through with properly.”

The reaction of GPs to the changes will be crucial if the Coalition is to avoid confrontation. Ministers will hope that they embrace the opportunity, but some are likely to oppose the moves. Labour failed to drive through public service reforms in the face of opposition from unions and vested interests, as well as opposition from the party’s own MPs.

But Mr Cameron is determined to put his stamp on reform. In a speech to civil servants yesterday, he said his time at No?10 would not be defined solely by cuts and the deficit reduction plan.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Biggest-revolution-in-the-NHS-for-60-years