Posts Tagged ‘Cameron’

The Conservative Party reveals its priorities for the NHS

By Mike Broad - 12th November 2009 12:30 pm

The Tories recently released their five priorities healthcare. It’s as long on rhetoric, as it’s short on detail - but that’s to be expected for such a politicised document. It does, however, indicate the likely direction of health policy under a Conservative government and is worth examination. 

The most striking fact is how similar the Tory aims are for the NHS to the current government’s.

But, putting that to one side, the subtext is that the Conservative Party is offering the medical profession a deal. It will ‘listen’ to doctors and reduce the target culture, while giving them more independence and autonomy; in return, it wants health professionals to play ball and support the drive for greater patient choice and empowerment.

So, in terms of supporting doctors, the Renewal: Plan for a better NHS says a Conservative government would: “Put trust in our healthcare professionals: GPs and other primary care commissioners will have real budgets, real freedoms and real responsibility to manage their patients’ care. And doctors and clinicians, not government officials, will decide how best to structure care in hospitals.”

The pay-off is to finish the job the current government started by turning patients into informed consumers. The Conservatives will: “Reverse the top-down power relationship governing the NHS, putting patients, not politicians, in the driving seat. Patients will have a real power of choice over their care: which GP or other healthcare provider they want to use, which hospital they go to and even whether they want the privacy of a single room, rather than a ward.”

Sound familiar? The onus will be on healthcare providers and the medical profession to provide the appropriate information to enable informed decision making.

The party will: “Empower genuinely informed choices by publishing new forms of information about the results of treatments that healthcare providers achieve. Patients and care commissioners can then see, for example, which hospitals perform well for a particular kind of surgery, or if a local GP has a good record for delivering good outcomes for patients.”

This theme of accountability is further developed, with the commitment to: “Give decision-making power back to NHS professionals and shift accountability firmly back to patients by allowing the NHS to be independent from government, with its own constitution, run by an independent board, and made accountable to a new patient body, Health Watch.”

It wouldn’t be a political ‘manifesto’ without a new quango or seven (despite a commitment to cut bureaucracy).

The growth and transparency of relevant patient information - and thus choice - will also be supported by the funding system.

The Conservatives will: “Create positive funding incentives to support patient choice by rewarding successful treatment results for patients. With funding following patients, providers will have clear incentives to achieve higher standards of care; the need for centralised targets and government control simply falls away.”

More controversially, the party is committed to encouraging more private sector providers to deliver NHS services. Just as the government starts to retreat from private sector solutions, the Conservatives would re-invigorate the commercialisation of the NHS.

The Tories will: “Allow independent healthcare providers, as well as NHS foundation trusts and other NHS providers, the freedom to supply services to the NHS, if they can do so at the NHS price and NHS standards. Commissioning of NHS services will be separate from healthcare providers and overseen by the independent NHS Board. An independent regulatory structure will ensure high standards of service and care.”

On announcing the health priorities, Tory leader David Cameron outlined a raft of other initiatives, including an online alternative to the NHS centralised IT system, a push towards GP commissioning and expanding the number and scope of foundation trusts.

The commitments to reduce target culture, create an independent health board overseeing the NHS, increase professional autonomy and swell the numbers of health visitors have all been well received by the medical profession and its representatives.

But the BMA, which is currently running the Look After Our NHS Campaign, is less than impressed with the Conservatives’ plan to expand competition and further privatise NHS delivery.

At the launch at the Royal College of Pathologists, earlier this month, David Cameron said: “The Conservatives understand that competition isn’t a dirty word - in fact it is the key to better healthcare for everyone. With a Conservative government any service provider from the private or voluntary sectors will be able to compete on equal terms for an NHS contract.”

Keith Brent, deputy chair of the BMA’s consultants committee, criticised Cameron’s repetition of “the mantra” that competition drives innovation and quality and called on him to produce the evidence.

He said: “I would urge Mr Cameron to engage with us so that we can, together with politicians and patients, decide on the best way forward, rather than committing us to compete with one another.”

Stephen Campion, chief executive of the HCSA, is concerned about the proposed extension of Monitor’s - the foundation trust regulator - powers “beyond the authorising of NHS foundation trusts to applying price controls and, in particular, determining the NHS tariff”.

He said: “It is also proposed that Monitor will exercise concurrent competition powers, such as how competition laws are applied to the healthcare sector. This needs to be considered very carefully. Simultaneously regulating NHS foundation trusts and setting market conditions may lead to a conflict of interest. I would suggest that there should be clear separation of these functions.”

Of course, no political plan would be complete without something gimmicky to grab an easy headline or two. In this case, it was the renaming of the Department of Health if the Tories come to power. It would become the Department of Public Health, affirming the Conservative Party’s intention to adopt a more preventative approach to the nation’s health.

The plan says the Conservatives will: “Build new partnerships with local authorities and the business community to help deliver major preventative public health objectives, including reducing the causes of disease, promoting healthy lifestyles and reducing health inequalities.”

Oh yes, and Mr Cameron said the Conservatives were “the party” of the NHS and would increase funding year on year. To prove the point they’ve launched a petition calling on the government to increase spending on the NHS every year and cut bureaucracy.

Apparently, he didn’t have his fingers crossed when he announced it.

Five health priorities at-a-glance

1. Patient-led NHS

2. Healthcare professionals in charge of care

3. Extensive measurement of provider outcomes

4. Improve public health

5. Reform long-term care so people can stay in their communities

Cameron would rename the Department of Health

The Guardian - 2nd November 2009 1:43 pm

David Cameron will rename the Department of Health to ensure that it is committed to improving the health of the entire nation.

In a speech setting out his five priorities for the NHS, the Tory leader said the DoH would become the “Department of Public Health” and that a Conservative government would publish a white paper on public health.

Stepping up his bid to make the Tories the party of the NHS, he also promised reforms to cut costs and extend “patient power”. The Conservative leader repeated his pledge to ring-fence the health budget, but insisted that money would be better spent.

The £4.5bn annual bill for administering the NHS was “astonishing”, and must be slashed by a third over the next four years, he said.

In a speech in London setting out Tory priorities for the NHS, Cameron insisted: “Spending on the NHS cannot stand still. But that does not mean we are simply going to pour money in as Labour have done. If we change nothing, and if productivity keeps falling at the rate it is today, then even with real-terms increases in spending we couldn’t hope to cope with the pressures on the NHS.

“That’s why, as well as those increases, we urgently need reform to make our whole health service more efficient. We are determined that a Conservative pound will go much further than a Labour pound.”

Cameron said that five priorities would determine his approach to health policy: making the NHS patient-led, measuring health outcomes, putting healthcare professionals in charge, getting the government to focus on improving public health, and reforming long-term care.

Read more at The Guardian.

Tories offer deal that doctors should probably take

By Stephen Campion, HCSA chief executive - 9th October 2009 12:01 pm

Late last evening I received a text. The message from a friend of mine simply asked: “What did I think of David Cameron’s speech?”

I have not yet replied because the real answer is that I simply do not know what to make of it. Certainly the promise to end the target culture was encouraging - and indeed not surprising. Targets have done much to destroy the doctor/patient relationship.

We have consistently argued to government and the opposition that the competing priorities between clinical need and political targets have led to a dilemma for doctors almost impossible to reconcile. So, well done David Cameron.

But the flip side is that doctors will be asked to trade-off the target culture against a new measure of patient satisfaction, and greater patient choice. The concept of patient satisfaction is in itself no bad thing. If you don’t like the service from the bank, then change bank.

As the Royal Mail is finding to its cost, if you don’t like the service then change to a different courier or use the electronic technology now available.

But how does a patient assess the quality of medical care and treatment? No matter how good the doctor, prognosis and treatment are not necessarily indices of success. And the environment is not one necessarily controlled by the doctor alone; the doctor may lead the team but health outcome is governed by a complex combination of factors often outside the doctor’s influence.

If we have to work through these issues as a price for losing the dreaded target culture it seems to me that is a price worth paying. I think I will reply to my friend’s text as follows: “Speech encouraging - the devil will be in the detail!”