Skip to main content

Labour's myths about NHS proposals

Labour myths answered

Myth: There is next to nothing of Lib Dem policy in this huge top-down reorganisation:

Absolutely not true.
The Liberal Democrat manifesto promised that new social enterprises would be created to deliver NHS services, that all types of providers – NHS, voluntary, or independent sector – would be free to deliver, the scrapping central, top-down targets, and cutting back on unnecessary administrative costs . Abolishing SHAs, increased competition, stronger local democratic input in the NHS and greater integration between health and social care are also all Liberal Democrat policies explicitly set out in our manifesto.

1. GP commissioning

“[We will ensure] that local GPs are directly involved in providing out-of-hours care.” (page 43, Liberal Democrat manifesto)

2. Provider-side reform

“[We will put] front-lime staff in charge of their ward or unit budgets, and [allow] staff to establish employee trusts giving them real involvement and a say over how their service is run.” (page 42, Liberal Democrat manifesto)

3. Any Willing Provider

“[We will reduce] centralised targets and bureaucracy, replacing them with entitlements guaranteeing that patients get diagnosis and treatment on time. If not, the NHS will pay for the treatment to be provided privately.” (page 42, Liberal Democrat manifesto)

“[We will give] Local Health Boards the freedom to commission services for local people from a range of different types of provider, including for example staff co-operatives, on the basis of a level playing field – ending any current bias in favour of private providers.” (page 42, Liberal Democrat manifesto)

4. Choice

“[We will give] every patient the right to choose to register with the GP they want, without being restricted by where they live, and the right to access their GP by email.” (page 43, Liberal Democrat manifesto)

5. Reorganisation

“We will cut the size of the Department of Health by half, abolish unnecessary quangos such as Connecting for Health, and cut the budgets of the rest, scrap Strategic Health Authorities and seek to limit the pay and bonuses of top NHS managers so that none are paid more than the Prime Minister.” (pages 40-41, Liberal Democrat manifesto).

6. Targets / bureaucracy

“[We will reduce] centralised targets and bureaucracy.” (page 42, Liberal Democrat manifesto)

“We will cut the size of the Department of Health by half, abolish unnecessary quangos such as Connecting for Health, and cut the budgets of the rest, scrap Strategic Health Authorities and seek to limit the pay and bonuses of top NHS managers so that none are paid more than the Prime Minister.” (pages 40-41, Liberal Democrat manifesto).

7. Social enterprises

“[We will allow] staff to establish employee trusts giving them real involvement and a say over how their service is run.” (page 42, Liberal Democrat manifesto)


Myth: The reforms open up all parts of the NHS to private health companies:

Unlike the last Labour Government, we aren’t setting an arbitrary percentage of services that must be run by the private sector, with guaranteed volume levels and higher prices. Instead, any willing provider means that patients will be able to choose on the basis of quality, but without guarantees for providers. Private providers will not be able to “cherry pick” services. The less complex the procedure, the less someone-including in the private sector-will be paid. Unlike Labour, we won’t rig the market in favour of the private sector. That’s why Monitor has been given the powers of an economic regulator to prevent anti-competitive behaviour.


Myth: The legislation seriously restricts openness, scrutiny and accountability both the public and to Parliament.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. Under Labour the right of local authorities to scrutinise local health services was restricted to public healthcare providers. Where as before there were limitations on where the scrutiny could go under our changes scrutiny will now, for the first time, be able to follow the NHS pound by allowing local authorities to scrutinise private providers.

Local govt will no longer just be an observer when it comes to health commissioning. Instead they will be responsible for shaping local health services through Health and Wellbeing Boards, which will inject real democratic legitimacy into the NHS for the first time in almost 40 years.

GP consortia will be public bodies with a range of legal duties including adhering to the ‘Nolan principles’ of good governance and ensuring public and patient engagement.

The Secretary of State and the Department of Health will continue to retain overall accountability for the NHS. The Secretary of State will set a ‘mandate’ for the NHS Commissioning Board which sets out key priorities and outcomes for the NHS, this will be produced annually and will be subject to consultation and reporting to Parliament; our aim is to make political accountability more transparent ensuring that Ministers will no longer be able to micromanage the system in the way the last Government did.


Myth: Conservative ideology of full market competition is at the heart of this NHS reorganisation:

Not true.
Our manifesto included a commitment to commission services “on the basis of a level playing field” (p. 43). That is exactly what the ‘Any Willing Provider’ model allows for. We want patients to be able to choose to be treated wherever they want to be – whether it’s an NHS hospital, or one in the voluntary or private sectors. This is because more choice will lead to better care for patients. But we don’t want to set a target for the amount of private sector involvement in the NHS – unlike Labour – and unlike Labour we won’t pay the private sector any more than we would pay the NHS.


Myth: The BMA describe the changes as ‘extremely risky and potentially disastrous.

This is effectively the same position the BMA has held on NHS reform for years. It should not be forgotten that the BMA opposed the original creation of the NHS in 1948. It is a sad truth that the Labour Party, which once had interesting ideas on the NHS, now aligns itself with the opponents of modernisation. However, the Labour Party does seem confused about whether it is the principles or the implementation it objects to:
John Healey's speech to The King’s Fund: 19/01/11
“The general aims of reform are sound – greater role for clinicians in commissioning care, more involvement of patients, less bureaucracy and greater priority on improving health outcomes – and are common ground between patients, health professions and political parties.

Comments

Faux Pas said…
Mr Hemmings I trust that you are aware that the Coalition proposals will take money out of the NHS in the form of profits and will cherry pick the services which it will offer. The market only provides efficiencies at the margin so long term care for the elderly will result in increased cost.
john said…
That is a clear misunderstanding. Unlike Labour's policy there is no drive to increase the amount of services provided outside the NHS.

Furthermore the market can provide efficiencies in core services. It is not just a marginal issue.
PoliticalHackUK said…
Opening up the commissioning process this way WILL drive services outside the NHS, as the private hospitals will be able to cherry pick the operations that they wish to offer, leaving NHS providers with the expensive trauma care and the difficult work, unable to offset the costs with lower cost work.

Most GPs don't think it will reduce bureaucracy or improve outcomes - and how you can claim that increasing the number of commissioners will result in less bureaucracy or greater efficiency is beyond me.

The unions - including those hotbeds of radicalism, the Royal Colleges - are deeply concerned.

There is no evidence that this will improve outcomes - indeed quite the reverse is true. In the short term, the 'reforms' will cost billions that could have been better used in patient care.

If you want to act as one of the pallbearers to the NHS, then that's your choice, but you are betraying the people of Yardley.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…