The government's deliberate dismantling of parts of the NHS risks returning healthcare provision back to the grim and unfair days of the 1930s and 40s, one of Britain's leading doctors has warned.

 

The sweeping reforms are in danger of turning the service into "an increasingly tattered safety net" for those with complex illnesses such as diabetes and obesity because private healthcare firms will "cherry-pick" patients who are easy to treat, said Dr Mark Porter, the chairman of the British Medical Association's hospital consultants committee.

 

Its ability to provide a comprehensive and universal service could be lost because of health secretary Andrew Lansley's plan to force hospitals to compete with independent, profit-driven providers for patients, Porter told the Guardian.

 

Opening up NHS care in England to "any willing provider" could also lead to local hospitals closing down and patients being denied care by private providers because they cost too much to treat, said Porter.

 

"Very deliberately the government wishes to turn back the clock to the 1930s and 1940s, when there were private, charitable and co-operative providers of healthcare.

 

"But that system failed to provide comprehensive and universal service for the citizens of this country. That's why health was nationalised. But they're proposing to go back to the days before the NHS," Porter told the Guardian.

 

Allowing private companies to compete for NHS contracts carries huge risks, Porter added, in remarks that increase pressure on ministers over the health and social care bill going through the Commons.

 

"It's not that passing the bill will instantly destroy what we have," he added. "But it brings the risk that in some parts of the country, and for some patients, we go back to what we thought we had left behind when we founded the NHS in 1948." He added: "We fear that one unintended but inevitable effect of the bill will be to reintroduce the patchwork provision that marked services in this country before the NHS, where many people did not get the care they needed because while many hospitals gave good service, you didn't get the good service we have today [across the NHS]."

 

NHS services in some parts of England could be "destabilised" by private firms taking advantage of the controversial introduction of "any willing provider" to win contracts for patients with easy-to-treat conditions. This could lead to some hospitals no longer offering a full range of services and ultimately having to close.

 

The worst-hit patients would include those with chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes and heart failure, Porter added. They would have to travel longer distances for treatment.

 

The government is taking unnecessary risks by imposing market measures on the NHS, as competitive healthcare cannot deliver high quality treatment to everyone.

 

The NHS could become "a provider of last resort" for patients whose illnesses are of no interest to private firms, added Porterhe said. Once independent providers have signed contracts with the consortiums of GPs they could deny care to patients who would be costly to treat, Porter warned.

 

The return of unequal healthcare could even see provision starting to resemble that of the US, "where there are quite big geographical disparities in care and tens of millions of people can't get access to high-quality treatment".

 

Lansley performed his first big U-turn on his plans last week when he agreed to scrap plans to let hospitals undercut the prices they charged for treating patients, which has caused huge alarm in the medical establishment.

 

The BMA, many other medical organisations and Labour are fiercely opposed to "any willing provider" and hospitals having to compete for NHS work, but Lansley is unlikely to give ground on what he sees as central tenets of the reforms.

 

The Department of Health responded to Porter's attack by criticising the BMA and insisting that healthcare standards would not suffer. "We are modernising the NHS so we can offer patients high-quality care and improved health outcomes. Doing nothing is not an option", said the health minister Simon Burns.

 

"We expected some opposition to our modernisation plans from the unions. The BMA have historically opposed giving patients a choice of voluntary, independent and public sector services. But it is not in the interests of patients to bow to their demands.

 

"We want patients to choose the best care to suit them, but that does not mean a compromise in quality. Only those who meet rigorous quality standards will be able to provide services," he added.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/ma...s-return-doctor

For me, this is THE worst of the Coalition's policies (which is a hell of an achievement considering the competition it has).

 

Apparently, the Lib Dems are revolting over this - Shirley Williams is supposed to be tabling a motion condemning it at their spring conference in a couple of weeks' time. I hope they actually stand up to Clegg on this (unlike when, last year, they passed a motion condeming the Coalition's 'free schools' before doing precisely nothing to put pressure on them to abandon the policy), because, otherwise, it almost certainly will be disastrous for the NHS.

The most frightening thing about this policy is that it will be very difficult to reverse if (or more likely when) it doesn't work. Cameron (as ever) doesn't seem to have a clue and is just leaving Lansley to get on with it. Apparently some Tories are uneasy as well. If they and Lib Dem backbenchers get their act together they can defeat the government.

 

On tuition fees there was no real dispute that something needed to be done so there was more pressure on MPs not just to leave things as they are. On the NHS there isn't a strong case for any change at all, let alone this one. More people are happy with the NHS now than at any time in the past. Doesn't that suggest that most people are happy for things to stay as they are?

On the subject of free schools, the big difference there is that the legislation had already been passed by the time of the party conference. The motion was more to do with campaigning against the establishment of free schools locally. The NHS "reforms" haven't been passed and were not in the Coalition Agreement (which was agreed by a special Lib Dem conference). Indeed, that agreement included a commitment not to have a top down reform of the NHS.

On the NHS there isn't a strong case for any change at all, let alone this one. More people are happy with the NHS now than at any time in the past. Doesn't that suggest that most people are happy for things to stay as they are?

 

Indeed. At least with the Coalition's education reforms, there is atleast evidence that British schools are underperforming internationally, so there's a case for change (even though the Coalition are, imo, going for the wrong change). But the NHS is pretty damn fantastic as it is. A survey last year ranked our NHS the second best in the world (behind the Netherlands), and - despite Cameron/Lansley's slurs about 'lazy, second-rate bureaucrats' - it came FIRST in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Unsurprisngly, the US's healthcare system (which, like Lansley's plans, let's "any willing provider" provide care) comes bottom in terms of efficiency and outcomes.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10375877

 

These changes are worrying, and I'm beginning to think that Cameron will get Britain to join the Euro next.

These changes are worrying, and I'm beginning to think that Cameron will get Britain to join the Euro next.

There's no chance of that. Tory MPs are overwhelmingly hostile. The Lib Dems have always been broadly in favour of the euro but I don't think many would argue that now is a good time to join.

The Lib Dem spring conference has voted overwhelmingly against the proposed NHS changes. Over to you Mr Clegg. You said you were in listening mode. Now here's your chance to prove it.

Ha - the Lib Dems have rejected the NHS plans in a vote. Hopefully a U-turn is now in the offing, although I won't hold my breath.

The Lib Dem spring conference has voted overwhelmingly against the proposed NHS changes. Over to you Mr Clegg. You said you were in listening mode. Now here's your chance to prove it.

 

Is Clegg making his speech today or tomorrow?

Is Clegg making his speech today or tomorrow?

I assume it will be tomorrow, probably around lunchtime.

Looks like Clegg still doesn't get it:

 

Nick Clegg has played down the significance of the conference's decision to vote to limit the role of private providers in the NHS. Commenting on this morning's vote, he said that "almost all" the demands in the amendments accepted by the conference went "with the grain" of the government's reforms. "I am now going to look at it in considerable detail," he said. "Because I think a lot of what we have talked about this weekend - greater accountability, greater transparency, making sure we don't have a wilful disruptive approach to diversity of providers and don't allow the profit motive and price competition to run a coach and horses through the NHS - that's precisely what happens."

Nick Clegg finally stands up to David Cameron...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOL jk.

 

Downing Street has ruled out "significant changes" to government NHS reforms following their rejection by Liberal Democrat members.

 

Delegates at the party's spring conference voted at the weekend not to support a "damaging and unjustified" shake-up of health services in England.

 

Plans include axing primary care trusts and strategic health authorities.

 

No 10 said it would not make large changes to the proposals, but added they could be amended by Parliament.

 

Under the coalition government's Health Bill GPs would be given more responsibility for spending their budgets, with hospitals freed from central control and an independent board overseeing services.

 

The cost of the programme is predicted to be £1.4bn, with ministers saying this will more than be made up for in longer-term savings created by the removal of tiers of management.

 

Lib Dem activists are angry about what they see as Conservative plans that were not included in the coalition agreement.

 

At the party's conference in Sheffield, delegates voted to end "top-down" reorganisation of the NHS and impose limits to opening up services to more private competition.

 

In response, the Lib Dem leader, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, promised that "reform" would not mean "privatisation".

 

He claimed the changes the already made to the Health Bill went "with the grain" of activists' concerns, as they would increase accountability and transparency.

 

There had been suggestions in some on Monday's newspapers that the government plans faced a "radical overhaul".

 

But asked about those reports, the prime minister's official spokesman said: "There are not about to be significant changes to the policy."

 

He added that MPs and peers would have the chance to debate and, if necessary, amend the Health Bill.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12734324

Lib Dem MPs have more of a mandate to vote against these changes than Tories have to vote for them. They weren't in the Tory manifesto or in the Coalition Agreement. However it is now Lib Dem policy to oppose them.

Currently number 83 on iTunes. Get it higher :dance:

Thoroughly enjoying the Coalition going into meltdown over this! Apparently, Tory MPs are also refusing to back the reforms, and Cameron is apparently going to delay them for a bit... and, maybe most damagingly, closet socialist Norman Tebbitt has said the reforms are too right-wing even for him.

 

But, if Cameron was worried, useful idiot Nick Clegg is riding to his rescue again - apparently oblivious to the fact his membership overwhelmingly rejected the reforms a few weeks ago, Clegg is going to go on tour with Cameron to promote the reforms over the next few months, according to the political editor on the BBC News last night.

Thoroughly enjoying the Coalition going into meltdown over this! Apparently, Tory MPs are also refusing to back the reforms, and Cameron is apparently going to delay them for a bit... and, maybe most damagingly, closet socialist Norman Tebbitt has said the reforms are too right-wing even for him.

 

But, if Cameron was worried, useful idiot Nick Clegg is riding to his rescue again - apparently oblivious to the fact his membership overwhelmingly rejected the reforms a few weeks ago, Clegg is going to go on tour with Cameron to promote the reforms over the next few months, according to the political editor on the BBC News last night.

 

Closet socialist :lol: he'd love that :rofl:

There was a piece in the Observer yesterday suggesting that Lansley has had it in for the NHS since they failed to diagnose a minor stroke he suffered when he was in his mid 30s. I'm no expert but I suspect that a stroke is not the first thing a doctor will think of when a man in his 30s loses his sense of balance temporarily.

There was a piece in the Observer yesterday suggesting that Lansley has had it in for the NHS since they failed to diagnose a minor stroke he suffered when he was in his mid 30s. I'm no expert but I suspect that a stroke is not the first thing a doctor will think of when a man in his 30s loses his sense of balance temporarily.

 

Maybe a lack of perspective? :P