NHS 60: How do we improve our health service?

The health service, for all its faults, is much better than 11 years ago.

Waiting lists are down from an average of 18 months, to 4-6 weeks. The infrustructure of the hospital buildings, and clinics have dramatically improved in some areas. Cancer and heart deaths are down. Funding has made a real difference, and the NHS is undoubtedly better with 78,000 more nurses and 20,000 more doctors.

There have been some great reforms, some I'm not supportive of. I support the latest polyclinic plan, which can make a real difference in poorer areas. I don't mind if the state picks up the tab for private operations, as long as my gran gets the same treatment as a duchess. However, foundation hospitals may have led to middle-class areas creaming off funding.

Another greatreform of this government, is that they didn't divert funding to poorer peforming hospitals. This has meant that poorer wings and hospitals have to close. However bad in the short term, it is the long term right decision.

The government announced that quality, and not money or quantity would define funding yesterday. The particular problem with the cleaning industry, is that its marketisation has led to funding being directed on the issue of cost, rather than quality.

This is the greatness of the constitution. Rather than inciting people to fall for wonder drugs, it ends the postcode lottery by allowing people to demand any drug that NICE recommends. It needs more than £100 mn to ease the costs, but its a start.

The issue of choice doesn't weaken the roots of the NHS in the latest reforms. Everyone now has a legal right to choose their GP and hospital.

For those who say we need to change our funding structure, it is important to know that countries like France and the US are moving towards our funding structures.

It is more cost effective, as the Tories found when they wanted to abolish the NHS in the '50's, as public and private costs combined took up less of GDP. Ironically, the same things were said then: an ageing population, galloping technological advance and rising public expectations make the NHS unsustainable.

The NHS is in good health. 10 years ago, it needed serious operating on. But there are no more defecits, no more annual crises, and no more winter ward closures. Avoidable death rates show a 23% improvement-in the years of 1998-2003, before the big Labour spend.


But, we need a new vision. What should it be?

I would like to hear your ideas.

The Tories used to mock Labour on one particualr point about the NHS: "They promised it would make us healthier."

Why not correct that?

I think the new vision should be on making sure that there is less strain through unhealthiness.

Already, a smoking ban has seen admissions for heart attacks go down by 3%. Over a quarter of smokers have given up. This will make long term savings.

Why not ban advertising for alcohol? Furthermore, ban under 21's from buying alcohol, and end the era of cheap supermarket alcohol. This would not only see less admissions for violence, but in the long term for diseases like Cirrhosis.

We're facing an obesity crisis, so why not introduce universal and compulsory free school meals?

I hope you can all give me some more examples.

I think we should have less reform, and more cash for more midwives, and nurses and doctors and cleaners. We should have the Dutch model for infection. We should phase out prescription charges, and NHS parking costs. We need to sort out NHS dentistry.

What do you think we should do?





Display: Sort:

Re: NHS 60: How do we improve our health service? (#1)

In the latest Fabian Review amongst the usual ideas of free school meals, free prescriptions, someone suggested the state giving every child a bicycle when they reach a certain age, which I thought was quite fun.
 

Re: NHS 60: How do we improve our health service? (#2)

"However, foundation hospitals may have led to middle-class areas creaming off funding."

Would be interested to hear your evidence/argument for this assertion.

Does anyone else think the government has not been making enough of the NHS' 60th birthday? Considering the history of the NHS' establishment in 1948 and how it remains one of the nation's best loved institutions I would have thought Labour would be trying harder to make political capital out of it. What better time for a bold re-affirmation of our belief in the principles behind the NHS. The introduction of a radical new policy such as free prescriptions or some other expansion of the service would be great.

Maybe I've just missed all the news stories proving me wrong, but it seems like a wasted opportunity. Further evidence of the government having problems with communication and policy vision.

Re: NHS 60: How do we improve our health service? (#3)

Ok, I should not pass judgement until the end of the celebrations and events planned for this week!

Re: NHS 60: How do we improve our health service? (#4)

Dismantle the internal market, bring all subcontracts back in-house, end PFI builds for hospitals, free prescriptions, get rid of foundation hospitals, give NHS staff a better pay deal. How's that for a start? Would probably cost very little as well.

Re: NHS 60: How do we improve our health service? (#5)

We should phase out any costs for prescriptions and tests etc. This would also be good politics, as it would force the Conservatives to justify their supposedly 'liberal' side.

The NHS IS Labour. Tony Wright made a passionate defence of the NHS in Parliament today. He rightly described how the Tories and the BMA have been in a coalition to slowly dismantle the NHS for 60 years now.
The GP's aren't concerned about patients, they're concerned about their businesses.

I'm most concerned about what we should do about dentistry. As well as the extra 78,000 nurses and 30,000 doctors, we need extra dentists. I favour increasing pay for the NHS workers.

However, I think we need competition to preserve universal healthcare. I hate PFI. It has been a direct cause of infection, as private contractors have cut around the corners of cleaning. It takes huge chunks out of funding for beds, bedpans etc.

But, there is a big difference between the Tories health vouchers, and picking up the full tab for some ops. If you can afford half of the costs of a £4000 op., the Tories promised at the last election to subsidise the other half. But, if a poorer person needs an operation, even if it means sending them to a private hospital, we should subsidise the whole costs.

Labour has on some levels undermined private companies. Remember, we have always had private involvements. Bevan had to compromise, and allow some hospitals to have private clinics to treat the rich in a much better way, and he allowed GP's to run their practises like businesses. But before 1997, consultants would deliberately flood the waiting lists to drive patients into the arms of private companies. This no longer happens. The BMA constantly complains about this.

A market isn't necessarily a bad thing. The problem is hypocrasy. The government has been accused of scrambling to make cuts when they close certain wards and clinics and hospitals. It was because no matter how much funding given to them, the services weren't very good. Other hospitals and clinics were operating much better in the area. But competition has actually allowed us to talk about funding per patient, which for all the Tories incoherent ramblings decentralises power. If I can see that out of 5 hospitals, some private, some public, that one is particuarly better, I know which one I want to choose. Rather than the Tories plan to subsidise BUPA and the middle-class, this could make a real difference to poorer people.

But, remember, this won't happen often. The NHS is so good now, that subsidies to the private hospitals would slowly wither away. And the government has decided to beef up funding and power for NICE, which will see co-payments slowly withering away.

Re: NHS 60: How do we improve our health service? (#6)

Oh e10rifles we are destined to disagree about almost everything aren't we, except I hope that Labour whould continue to win elections.

You are so stuck in the 1980s that you probably know Gene Hunt personally.

Let's take them one by one shall we. 

The internal market has, er, been abolished.  It was abolished soon after that nasty Mr Blair became Prime Minister.  What we have now is a system whereby PCTs plan health services and then buy them off providers on behalf of their local population.  These providers are hospitals, GPs, dentists and primary and public health professionals.  They then make sure there is enough information about these services in the public domain to allow patients choice about where to go for treatment, because despite the best attempts of those who oppose the concept of darwinism, we are not all the same, we do things differently, we have different skills and needs.  In fact, we quite like to get (and provide) services that are about what we need and can deliver rather than what a man in an office in Central London tells an Asian family in Blackpool they need.

Bring all subcontracts back in house.  Ah yes, the call of the Left since time immemorial.  Are you sure.  Rubbish disposal?  Running car parks?  Providing canteens for the staff?  All things that public sector managers have close to their hearts.  You may have an argument abouts some services - cleaning perhaps - but all - please do sit back and think for a minute.

End PFI buildings for hospitals.  There are now 150 new hospitals in the NHS since Labour came to power.  We used to have an NHS estate where the vast majority was built before the NHS.  This is no longer the case, in just 10 years Labour has transformed the NHS estate actually building hospitals where the trolleys fit down corridors, where people can have single rooms for privacy, where the floors do not have awkward little joins where MRSA can clog, where the ceilings are high enough for modern medical machines.  To do this from the public purse in one lump sum would have meant no increase in staff, no staff payrises, no new drugs, in fact no trebling of NHS resources.  Buildings or nurses?  you make your choices you take your chances I suppose.

Make prescriptions free?  Over 80% of prescriptions in this country are free.  Those that are not are paid for by those who can afford them.  To do this would cost £430m a year.  And would, in the same instance as taking  that money out of the NHS, do that thing you say you hate, move money from the poor who benefit from the reinvestment of this money, to those who can afford to pay (as they have since 1950 by the way so hardly a new Labour invention) by putting yet more money in the pockets of those you want to tax more.  Urrgh?

Get rid of foundation trusts.  Foundation trusts are the ultimate example of passing power from the top to the people. Over 1 million people are members of foundation trusts and the numbers grow every day.  These are local people who can elect their own representatives to the boards of their local hospitals or mental health trusts.  You really want to take that away in favour of our man in Whitehall?

And we save the best for last, more money for staff.  NHS staff salaries have risen faster and further than any other public professionals in the country since Labour agreed Agenda for Change with all the health unions that fundamentally restructured the pay scales.  They have also just agreed a three year deal which gives them a higher first year deal than any other public sector group of workers.  We would all like to pay nurses more.  Not sure we want to pay GPs and consultants more, but you might.  But the pay for those who make the NHS tick has been one of the great success stories of this government.

Lets just concentrate, as Lord Darzi has suggested, on allowing doctors and nurses to provide the care they see fit, and allow patients to choose where they go for that care.

Re: NHS 60: (#7)

Blimey, where to start with this rubbish? I was going to avoid commenting on the usual "stuck in the 80s" mantra but one of my favourite ironies about people who say that is how stuck in the 90s they generally are.

The market still exists in that providers have to compete with each other. It is a basic tenet of socialism that this is not in the interests of workers. It is an observable fact that it is not in the interests of patients.

You didn't really make a case against bringing subcontracts in house there. It costs very little and makes a massive difference to some of the lowest-paid staff in the public sector. I know, given that I work in a building with some people on public sector wages and T/Cs and some who have been outsourced. I'm sure you can imagine the difference.

Prescriptions being free would cost almost nothing, as the Welsh are proving. It's nonsense to suggest that everyone who pays does so because they are comfortably off. I recently had to wait two weeks after getting my prescription in order to buy it because I didn't have any money but don't qualify for any of the tick boxes. And I'm not the only one.

Foundation Trusts are yet another example of giving already-wealthy institutions more wealth at the expense of those which need more resources. They have more resources and have an advantage when competing with other hospitals in that internal market which doesn't exist. Because they can pay more and are already successful they draw staff and resources away from other hospitals.


Finally, Agenda for Change was a rotten deal for a massive percentage of NHS staff. And the new three-year pay deal has NOT been agreed. It has been accepted by one of the unions, thanks to lots of arm-twisting from their New Labour-friendly officials, but not by others. It's also a bloody awful deal, averaging between 2 and 2.5% a year while inflation is almost 4.5% and heading north.


Choose, my arse. You would have thought we'd learned something from the NHS compared with its predecessors.


Re: NHS 60: (#8)

As Sunder Katwala has pointed out, we would probable save money if we abolished prescription charges, on adminstrative costs.

Re: NHS 60: How do we improve our health service? (#9)

Agree with most of this. I would allow people to opt for private treatment with the NHS paying the standard NHS tariff for whatever the patient was having done.

 

One thing jumped out though: "Already, a smoking ban has seen admissions for heart attacks go down by 3%." What? Do you really think this is related? How would you know? Isn't it a bit soon for it to have any significant effect? In short, your claim is ridiculous.