Shake-up in NHS is just a distraction from real challenges
In our regular column from our MPs in Westminster Liz Kendall, Labour MP for Leicester West looks at changes in the NHS
This weekend the new President of the Royal College of GPs issued a stark warning about the Tory-LibDem Government's plans for the NHS. Dr Clare Gerada said the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley's proposals mean "the end of the NHS as we know it", widening the postcode lottery in care, shattering trust between GPs and patients and increasing the private sector's role.
What will the Government's plans mean in Leicester and Leicestershire? The two primary care trusts (PCTs) that are currently in charge of health and NHS services are likely to be replaced by three or four "GP commissioning consortia" – groups of GPs with responsibility for around 80 per cent of the NHS budget.
These consortia may decide to set up another central body to contract services from University Hospitals Leicester NHS Trust.
The Government claims that abolishing all PCTs will cut NHS management costs by £1.9 billion.
But if Leicester's situation is mirrored elsewhere, we could see 150 PCTs replaced by around 500 GP consortia.
No wonder the King's Fund think-tank says that far from saving money, the Government's plans will cost an additional £3 billion.
This is money the NHS can ill afford to waste. Our ageing population, increases in illnesses like obesity and heart disease and new technologies and drugs are increasing demand on the NHS at a time when its budget is static. Unless the NHS gets a huge amount more out of the money it spends, patient care will suffer.
The Government also wants to change the way decisions are made about which drugs are available on the NHS. Instead of being decided by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, individual GPs will now be responsible.
This sounds like a good idea – surely doctors know what's best for their patients? But GPs will be forced to decide whether to fund an expensive drug for one patient, leaving less money to spend on others – hence the warning about the postcode lottery in care.
Decisions about health services should be taken locally wherever possible, and clinicians and patients should have a bigger say in how NHS services are run.
But the Government wants local GP services to be managed by a new NHS Commissioning Board. How can an unelected national organisation in London know how best to run GP services in New Parks or Braunstone, or be held accountable to local people?
Lansley's reorganisation is a huge distraction from the real challenge facing the NHS, which is improving patient care within extremely tight resources.
Hospital waiting times are already increasing in some parts of the country, and winter hasn't even started yet.
David Cameron promised "with the Conservatives there will be no more top-down NHS re-organisations… the disruption is terrible, the demoralisation worse and the waste of money inexcusable".
It's not often I say this, but I agree with David. It's a pity his Health Secretary takes a different view.
If You would like to contact Liz Kendall MP telephone 0116 204 4980, or e-mail her at:
liz.kendall.mp@parliament.co.uk













2 Comments
by m, le3
Tuesday, November 23 2010, 5:52PM
“The original GPFH experiment wasnt especially successful and most GPs didnt favour it and dont favour the changes. It was the beginning of the expansion of managers and admin staff in the NHS, a process which has continued each time government legislation has sought to change the NHS.
It is unlikely that the latest changes announced by Lansley will be any different, whatever there intentions, they will end up causing chaos and costing lots of money. When there are some high profile cases of patients being adversely affected and the government look like lossing an election on the NHS, there will be some U-turns - although obviously they wont described in that way. :)”
by David, Leicestershire
Tuesday, November 23 2010, 5:08PM
“Liz Kendall the fact of putting the front line in control is not top down, it is the opposite. Giving LA's and GPs the control will actually start addressing the prevention agenda which is proved to save money. It is rich coming from a Labour politician who in precided over 13 years of central control and wasted billions on managers as well as three reorganisations.”