Posts Tagged ‘Health policy’

Health Bill amended to overcome resistance

By Mike Broad - 2nd February 2012 8:31 pm

The government has tabled a series of amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill in advance of its Report Stage in the House of Lords, which begins next week.

Health minister Earl Howe has tabled a number of amendments in a bid to placate concerns raised by the House of Lords.

Chief among them is a clearer directive to both clinical commissioning groups and the health secretary to promote a ‘comprehensive health service’, following fears that CCGs could ration some services.

Clauses have also been inserted requiring CCGs to give clearer evidence on how they are tackling health inequalities and promoting education and training, and to diminish the potential for conflicts of interest.

It comes in the week when the Royal College of Psychiatrists joined the Royal College of Radiologists in opposing the Bill in its current form. A survey of psychiatrists finds that 85% believe the Bill will have a negative impact on the health and social care system, and 80% consider it to be fundamentally flawed.

Other amendments include bestowing the health regulator Monitor with the power to require healthcare providers to promote integration of NHS services; a new duty on the health secretary, NHS Commissioning Board and CCGs to report annually on their progress in tackling health inequalities; and duties on CCGs and the NHS Commissioning Board to promote patient involvement in their own care.

Health secretary Andrew Lansley said: “The principles of our modernisation plans - ‘no decision about me, without me’ for patients, clinical leadership with doctors and nurses leading discussions on services, a focus on results for patients and reducing bureaucracy - have always been at the core of the Bill. These principles are widely accepted as reported by the independent NHS Future Forum. But we have been carefully listening to the ideas raised as the Bill has progressed through Parliament. And as a result we have today tabled a series of amendments to address these remaining issues.”

Report stage in the House of Lords is due to start on 8 February. The BMA and the royal colleges are yet to respond.

Professor Sue Bailey, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said: “On behalf of our members and patients, we will scrutinise these amendments carefully in order to make an informed decision on whether or not they address the very real concerns of psychiatrists.”

The college wants the Bill to ensure parity of esteem between mental health and physical health; a reduction rather than an increase in health inequalities; that integrated care is safeguarded over competition; that competition is only used in the NHS where it can be shown to clearly benefit patients; and, continuation of a system of effective postgraduate medical education and training.

Radiologists voice opposition to Health Bill

By Mike Broad - 30th January 2012 9:21 pm

The Royal College of Radiologists has joined the BMA, the Royal College of Nursing and Royal College of Midwives in opposing the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill.

The RCR says the Health Bill does not currently contain a clear duty on health secretary to take direct responsibility for the provision of comprehensive and equitable healthcare for the whole of the population of England.

A statement from the College said: “Recognising that whilst competition has for some time played a role in the NHS, we remain alarmed that the dangers of unfettered competition as outlined in the Bill will adversely affect integrated care in both clinical oncology and clinical radiology.”

It added that there is “great risk of widespread, and potentially embedded, health inequalities across the NHS”.

Meanwhile, a YouGov poll this week finds that 78% of 1,600 medical professionals believe the Health Bill plans will exclude more people from healthcare.

Seven out of ten think it will lead to patient charges for basic services such as ambulance, cancer screening and maternity care.

Commenting on the survey, Dr Helena McKeown, a GP from Wiltshire, said: “This poll shows what anyone who works in the NHS has known for months - Lansley’s plans are a disaster for patients. 84% have no confidence that the right balance between competition and collaboration will be struck as Lansley claims, so it’s no surprise that only 13% of NHS staff surveyed think he’s doing a good job - he’s not.”

The hardening in opposition follows the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges’ (AMRC) eleventh hour about face on publicly opposing the Health Bill. Behind the scenes ministers accused the colleges of becoming too political, and the Royal College of Surgeons maintained its support for the Bill.

The RCR statement adds: “Clinical radiology has already seen the negative impact of outsourcing on integration. Procuring radiology services from different sources would have a hugely detrimental impact on integration adding costs to the NHS overall.

“In a tertiary specialty such as clinical oncology, fragmentation will impact negatively on the capacity to deliver coherent care locally. It will also undo the excellent national co-ordinated patterns of care achieved through the cancer agenda. The capacity to deliver the right care in the right place to the right patient would be seriously undermined.”

The developments follow a series of high level talks last week including a parliamentary meeting of the royal colleges and others chaired by Lord Owen, and another between the BMA, the Royal College of Nursing and the AMRC.

Bevan’s Run: two doctors, six marathons, one NHS

By Clive Peedell, oncologist and co-chair of the NHSCA - 26th January 2012 12:34 pm

Andrew Lansley’s Health and Social Care Bill will fundamentally undermine the founding principles of the NHS by turning the NHS into a regulated competitive external market system, leading to increasing NHS commercialisation and privatisation. The public provision of healthcare will increasingly be replaced by private sector providers. This process will be driven by Clinical Commissioning Groups, which will buy in private sector commissioning support to help manage the new healthcare market.

This process will be catalysed by the £20 billion of efficiency savings required of the NHS by 2014-15. This will lead to increasing waiting lists, service failures and rationing of care, driving a new market for private healthcare insurance, top ups and co-payments. Struggling Foundation Trusts will need to treat increasing numbers of private patients to stay afloat. Hence the importance of the recently announced rise of the private income cap to 49%: NHS Hospitals in England will be allowed to use almost half their beds and theatre time for private patients.

This new market will lead to a more expensive, fragmented, and inequitable healthcare service. An increasingly commercialised and financially based system will erode medical professionalism and the social contract, thus fundamentally undermining the trust in the doctor-patient relationship that is so crucial to good clinical care.

The Bill is fundamentally flawed and is based on a philosophy of unfettered faith in market ideology, rather than evidence. The NHS has recently been shown to be a highly performing system by the Commonwealth Fund, and received its highest ever public satisfaction ratings in the recent British Social Attitudes survey. There is no democratic mandate for such a major top-down reorganisation, yet much of the reform is being implemented before the legislation has even been enacted. This is causing chaos on the frontline as PCT staff are being sacked and organisational memory is lost. It is also extremely costly, with estimates of the cost of the reorganisation now estimated at up to £4billion by the LSE’s Professor Patrick Dunleavey.

It is therefore of no surprise that there has been a major backlash from the health professions, with the BMA, Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives, now all publicly opposing the Bill and calling for it to be withdrawn.

However, despite the widespread opposition from NHS stakeholders, the Bill continues on its journey towards Royal Ascent, aided by the Parliamentary maths of a coalition government, which gives it a majority in both Chambers.

It is painfully ironic, that if the Conservative Party had won an outright majority at the General Election, the Bill would have been blocked in the Lords by Liberal Democrat peers. Instead, Liberal Democrat MPs and peers are putting “politics before patients” to keep the coalition together to ensure their political survival. This is very bad news for those who value the NHS as a publicly funded, publicly provided and publicly accountable healthcare system. However, at this very difficult time, we should all remember the famous words of Aneurin Bevan about the NHS: ”It will last a long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it.”

This famous phrase is the motto of the NHS Consultants’ Association and as co-chairman of this organisation, I felt it was my duty to try and live up to it in order to defend the NHS from this Bill.

I therefore decided to try and raise professional and public awareness of the dangers of the Bill by running 160 miles in 6 days, from Aneurin Bevan’s statue in Cardiff City Centre to the Department of Health in London in a symbolic protest. So on a damp Tuesday morning on the 10 January this year, I set out from Bevan’s statue in Cardiff with my colleague Dr David Wilson (a fellow Consultant clinical oncologist from Middlesbrough) with three mock postcards from Bevan, to personally deliver to David Cameron’s constituency office in Witney, Andrew Lansley at the Department at Health, and finally to Number 10 Downing Street.

The run was dubbed “Bevan’s Run” and I set up a blogsite and used Twitter to campaign along the way. (You can follow my Twitter timeline @cpeedell).

We ran 30 miles on the first day to finish on the English side of the old Severn Bridge. We were joined by Stefan Coghlan, chairman of BMA Wales for the first 13 miles. He has only intended to run 6 miles, but he pushed on to make it all the way to Newport station, where he borrowed £20 of me to get the train back.

Day 2 saw us run on to Tetbury (25 miles). This is when I developed left knee pain and required a knee support and 600mg of ibuprofen to carry on.

Day 3 took us through the Cotswolds and into Burford, at which point I developed right knee pain, requiring another knee support and more painkillers!

On day 4, we stopped off in David Cameron’s constituency of Witney, where we at least managed to get some local media attention. There was a rally in the Green of the Town Centre with speakers including Professor Allyson Pollock of Queen Mary University London; Prof Ian Banks, President of the European Men’s Health Forum; Dr David Wrigley of BMA UK Council; and Dr Jacky Davis, co-chair of the NHS Consultants’ Association. We then marched down the High Street to post “Bevan’s Postcard” at the Conservative Party constituency office. Later that day we stopped off at “Nye Bevan Close” in Oxford for another publicity opportunity and got onto Meridian News that evening.

Day 5 was a grim slog from Wheatley, Oxfordshire to Beaconsfield, where we delivered a “bonus” postcard to the office of Dominic Grieve MP, Attorney General.

On the final day we set off on a frosty, crisp morning towards Central London. We met up with some fellow “Bevan Runners” on the way, and six hours later, finally turned into Parliament Street to be greeted by a few hundred supporters outside Richmond House (Department of Health). The BBC cameras were there, but we didn’t make the TV news or even the BBC News website.

After some more speakers including Dr Clare Gerada, president of the Royal College of GPs, we headed off to Downing Street rattling a “Bevan’s bedpan” full of spoons to signify Bevan’s famous words about a bedpan falling in Tredegar hospital being heard to reverberate around the corridors of Whitehall. We handed our postcard in to Number 10 and then it was time for home, shattered and aching, but proud to have stood up for the principles of our fantastic NHS.

I think it is fair to say that we failed to grab the national media attention we needed to raise public awareness about the threats to the NHS from the Bill, but we did raise professional awareness with lots of coverage in the medical press. We are now seeing a groundswell of opposition to the Bill building up from the medical and nursing professions. The medical royal colleges are coming under increasing pressure to join the BMA, RCN and RCM to oppose this Bill. This could prove a fatal blow Lansley’s privatisation plans.

The NHS is too important for our society to lose. It is the glue that holds the social fabric together. All is not lost - we must continue the fight for the NHS.

This article was first published on the Open Democracy website.

Health inequalities: time to park the Health Bill

By Katherine Teale - 23rd January 2012 11:37 pm

Unless you’ve been hiding under the duvet for the last 18 months, you must be aware of the furore over the Health Bill, which has received a new battering this week from the Health Select Committee.

As a GP friend pointed out during a commissioning meeting, we work in an inner-city area where most residents take home less than the UK median wage (£23,000), and so, under the proposed system,  probably won’t be buying health insurance or ‘top ups‘, or whatever this will be called when the GP commissioners run out of money and decide that they can’t afford to fund procedure X or Y on the NHS. And that therefore if you require an X- or Y-plasty you will have to find alternative funding or just put up with it.

So poverty (or, at least, being unable to afford health insurance) and illness is going to be a bad combination - but if you’re a healthy doctor in the top 5% wage bracket and able to ‘work’ the health system, do you care?

Some do. NHSCA chair Dr Clive Peedell ran six back-to-back marathons this month to draw attention to the dismantling of universal healthcare - that’s what I call putting ‘skin in the game’.

Others, though, are less sympathetic, and take the view that the poor have only themselves to blame. Apparently they should have bothered to get themselves a good education when they were younger, and then they wouldn’t be in this mess. This was my second interesting discussion this week, and came on the back of complaints about our graduated car park charges, whereby a consultant on £90K has to pay about £15 a month more than a support worker on £18K.

“We don’t have to pay more for a pint of milk at Tesco just because we earn more.”  The Tesco argument is one which I’ve heard before, so this is not an isolated view.

I’m no saint when it comes to compassion - I don’t even  buy the Big Issue every week - but where do I start? For one thing, the comparison doesn’t work because, of course, poor people probably do pay less for a pint of milk at Tesco -  they simply avoid the organic or decent locally farmed stuff. Hospital car park charges are quite substantial (I pay over £30 monthly) and a significant burden for low paid workers taking home less than £1,000. Even means tested, it’s still a helluva lot more, proportionately, for them than for us.

My concern with this is that it’s a small step from saying it’s OK to price our poorly paid colleagues out of the car park, to saying that poor people don’t  deserve the same healthcare, because  they obviously didn’t try hard enough at school.

How appropriate that in the bicentenary of Dickens’ birth, we should be hearing about the undeserving poor. Doctors have traditionally stood up for the poor and the sick. As well as getting angry about the theft of our pension funds, we should all be striving to preserve the NHS as a good, universal service for all - even for those who didn’t manage 10 GCSE’s. Please sent an email to your Royal College president asking them to support dropping the Health and Social Care Bill.

What is the NHS going to look like post-reform?

By Dr Alex Scott-Samuel, senior lecturer in public health, Liverpool University - 11:26 am

One element missing from current discussions of the Health and Social Care Bill is a straightforward account of what will happen if it becomes law. From a detailed study of the Bill and the academic and policy literature about it, plus many discussions with experts, I have distilled this simple scenario of England a few years after the Bill’s enactment.

If the Health and Social Care Bill is passed and fully implemented, the NHS will no longer be a provider of services, as GPs, hospitals and community health services will all be outside the public sector. The NHS will simply be a publicly funded budget and a brand name for a subcontracting operation for competing private organisations, subject to European competition laws which will allow private companies to predominate over other (eg third sector) providers.

Since competition and collaboration are incompatible and in any case, cooperation between providers will be punishable by law as anti-competitive, coordinated services for people with chronic or complex conditions will break down and disappear except within the restricted framework of tied providers under the so-called “integrated care” model developed by the US health insurance industry.

Because the post-credit-crash health service has a more or less fixed budget it will increasingly be the case that services judged to be ‘of lower clinical priority’ will no longer be provided free and will be charged for (or alternatively people will go private). These increasingly common NHS charges will create a demand (i.e. a market) for health insurance, which will mainly be affordable by the most affluent and which will also drive up costs because of administration fees and private profits.

The trigger for the roll-out of top-up insurance will be the impending introduction of personal health budgets, which represent a first step towards user charges.

Clinical commissioning groups will operate on an individual basis so as to be compatible with the insurance companies, unlike the traditional GP service which is population-based and pools risk across the whole country. Illness will begin to cause bankruptcy as is common in the US. Inequalities will increase enormously. Large amounts of public funds raised through taxation will be redirected as profits for the private companies which will provide NHS services and NHS commissioning support, and direct NHS charges (or health insurance payments to cover these) will become a normal item of household expenditure.

This letter first appeared in The Guardian.

Health Bill: royal colleges hold talks with Labour

By Mike Broad - 16th January 2012 4:22 pm

Representatives from the main royal medical colleges have met shadow health secretary Andy Burnham to discuss alternatives to the Health and Social Care Bill.

The former Labour minister is seeking to coordinate an eleventh hour campaign to get the Bill dropped - although the meeting was reportedly inconclusive.

The Bill is currently passing through the House of Lords and will not gain royal assent before March.

This follows a survey by the Royal College of GPs which suggests that 98% of its members want the Health Bill withdrawn.

Meanwhile, another former health secretary - Lord Owen - has intensified his campaign to force Andrew Lansley to release a potentially critical ‘risk register’ compiled by Department of Health officials, assessing the controversial Bill.

Lord Owen, who tabled a motion on the register last month in the Lords, has now written to the presidents of the medical royal colleges warning that the dangers of proceeding are far greater than those of stopping the Bill. Publication of the register was first requested under the Freedom of Information Act last February, but has been resisted by Andrew Lansley.

Futhermore, Alan Maryon-Davis, a former president of the Faculty of Public Health, has joined forces with two academics to urge the royal colleges and professional associations to ‘act decisively before it’s too late’.

In a statement Profs Maryon-Davis and Allyson Pollock, and John Lister, said: “Most of the royal colleges and faculties have so far sought to engage constructively with the government to gain various concessions. But there has been no change in the Bill’s fundamental thrust – hence our plea to the colleges and faculties.”

Continuing with the Health Bill is enormous risk

By Mike Broad - 12th December 2011 12:18 pm

The structural change currently taking place throughout the NHS in England before the Health and Social Care Bill even becomes law is threatening service stability, the BMA has warned.

In its latest briefing for peers - the first since it announced outright opposition to the Bill - the union describes a picture of chaotic and poorly coordinated reform.

The briefing paper sets out why doctors have hardened their position on the Bill in the context of the wider NHS reform agenda.

It criticises an overambitious timetable. Although the legislation has not yet been agreed, changes are already taking place both nationally and locally and assumptions are having to be made about the final architecture. The end result has been chaos on the ground, it says.

Complexity is also a problem. The stated aim of reducing bureaucracy now looks meaningless as new bodies and structures are being created, all with complex interrelationships, the paper suggests.

The BMA also warns that the rhetoric is not matching the reality. The government has said it wants to empower clinicians to commission on behalf of patients, however many of the powers of the NHS Commissioning Board set out in the Bill seem overly restrictive.

Dr Hamish Meldrum, Chairman of BMA Council, said: “There has been a growing level of unease about how the reforms are panning out - we hear repeated concerns from doctors about mounting chaos on the ground. For example, Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), that had initially been told they’d have freedom to form to suit their local communities, are now being told they’re too small and have to re-form.

“People are still unclear how primary care will be managed as we don’t yet know where staff currently working in PCT ‘clusters’ will eventually be based or if they’ll have jobs at all. Even at this stage, there are still unanswered questions about what statutory functions some bodies will have, making planning very difficult.”

At its November meeting, BMA council voted to change its position to outright opposition to the Bill in its entirety.

Meldrum said: “Guidance is being issued that is overly restrictive and more and more bureaucracy is being created to try to deal with issues which should have been dealt with at the beginning.  A huge amount of time, energy, money and commitment has been wasted because of a lack of a clear plan from the outset.

“We want the government to rethink its reform package and withdraw the Bill. It should be focusing on delivering high-quality, coordinated and integrated health care, not side-tracking staff with major structural reform. Continuing with this legislation, especially in a period of huge financial constraint, is an enormous risk.”

Read the full briefing.

At last the BMA stands up to be counted on the Bill

By Jacky Davis, co-chair of NHSCA and BMA council member - 8th December 2011 1:31 pm

The BMA - representing 147,000 doctors in the UK - finally lost patience with Andrew Lansley’s unloved and unwanted Health and Social Care Bill last week when its national council voted decisively to move to a position of full opposition to the entire Bill and to campaign against the threatened legislation.

Up until now the doctors’ trades union has believed that it could rescue the parts of the Bill that appealed to some doctors, in particular the proposal that GPs commission care on behalf of their patients. At the same time they hoped that by reasonably engaging with politicians they could mitigate the frankly obnoxious parts, in particular the burgeoning involvement of the private sector in delivering the service, and the emphasis on competition rather than collaboration in the English NHS, an attitude which is completely counter cultural for health care professionals and which has no benefit for patients beyond a spurious ‘choice’ agenda which most don’t want.

However a leaked document - Developing Commissioning Support: Towards Service Excellence - has proved to be the final straw that broke the BMA’s hope that something - anything - could be rescued from this legislation. It is written in the usual impenetrable jargon and double-speak but when translated into plain English it indicates that the private sector will rapidly be taking over the support of commissioning, leaving GPs with little power beyond organising some specialised areas such as learning difficulties and yet still likely to get the blame for the cuts and closures which will inevitably result from the financial squeeze which the NHS is facing.

It makes a mockery of promises to put the profession and patients in the driving seat, a position which will instead be firmly occupied by the transnational health corporations who see huge opportunities for helping themselves to a large slice of the NHS budget.

With GPs furious about this early betrayal it is now difficult to find anyone outside the Coalition and the Department of Health who thinks this Bill is anything other than a dangerous and chaotic mess. More than a few Tories wish it would just go away. The Lords are trying to water it down with amendments but the Bill is of a piece, woven from whole cloth and no amendment is going to make it palatable or even workable.

With Andrew Lansley arousing more suspicions by refusing to disclose the risk assessment documents to the House of Lords (so much for promises of transparency in government) it is astonishing that it is being allowed to stagger on when it would be in almost everybody’s interest to put it out of its misery.

The NHS is after all (Commonwealth Fund Study 2011) one of the most cost effective and popular health services in the industrialised world, and the last thing it needs (according to a recent report by the OECD) is another major upheaval. The ‘crisis’ of the NHS is a manufactured one, scare stories invented to suit the Coalition’s assault on public services, and we are not fooled by bogus statistics about poor outcomes, of which the government should be ashamed.

So, here is a suggestion: halt the Bill now, just stop it and concentrate on rescuing the situation on the ground brought about by starting to implement it before it is law. Then we can take a deep breath and consider in relative leisure how we can improve the NHS without destroying it. Otherwise this will be the Coalition’s poll tax, and they will suffer the political consequences because the public will not forgive the political vandals responsible for the destruction of the most popular institution in this country bar none.

The last word on the Health and Social Care Bill

By Bob Bury - 5th December 2011 12:06 pm

Remember the Darzi centres (or khazi centres, as they rapidly became known to the Unbelievers)? These were the walk-in surgeries championed by Lord Darzi in his much-trumpeted review of the NHS. They were designed to give patients, particularly commuters, easier access to GP services - patient choice being, of course, the paramount concern.

Now, you may recall that a lot of people, well, pretty much everyone really, pointed out that duplicating provision in this way by insisting on setting up these centres even in areas which were already well-provided for by GPs, ‘nice’ though it might be, wasn’t perhaps the most sensible way to use resources which were already overstretched. But New Labour had the bit between their teeth, and clinics mushroomed across the country, including my home patch of Leeds.

Now they are closing them down.

I would pose the rhetorical question ‘why’, but it hardly needs asking. When walk-in clinics in the South were being closed earlier this year, the associate director of communications and engagement (sic!) at the relevant PCT explained the issue very simply: “The majority of patients who have been using the centres could quite easily have used another service…they created a demand which wasn’t there before.” In other words, exactly the problem which was predicted when the centres were first mooted.

The story was the same in Leeds - only 20% of the people passing through the doors of the new centres were the commuters for whom the service was designed, and most patients were already registered with GPs in the area.

You could, of course, make exactly the same point about NHS Direct. This too was the result of focus group politics and blind acceptance of patient choice as the appropriate parameter for determining resource allocation (and if you ask people whether they would ‘like’ to be able to ring someone up to ask if they needed to see the doctor or not, they’ll naturally say “yes”). No matter that anyone with significant symptoms will be told to go to the GP or nearest emergency department anyway, and that providing the service will take hundreds of highly-trained nurses away from the front line of healthcare provision, where they are sorely needed.

The patients have what they want, and their votes are assured. That’s the important thing.

And of course, we now have the Health and Social Care Bill, which will open up healthcare provision to ‘any qualified provider’, and ensure a free-for-all which will fragment the service and result in yet more wasteful duplication, making the essential coordination between services much more difficult or non-existent. Just as the last government were warned what would happen if they set up their new clinics, Andrew Lansley has been told what will happen if his Bill comes into effect. They didn’t listen, and nor will he.

Still, never mind. The patients will have chosen, and Mr Darzi has his peerage, and has retired (I assume) back into the relative obscurity of his surgical career. So all’s well with the world.

As Mr Jerry Nelson would say - arse! And I promise you, that’s (probably) my last word on the subject of The Bill, and it’s the appropriate word.

Health Bill to create private sector advantage

By Mike Broad - 24th November 2011 2:52 pm

Doctors representatives are continuing to seek amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill as more detail is revealed about clinical commissioning groups will function.

The BMA says new proposals from the government would give the commercial sector an in-built advantage in the commissioning support process.

Draft guidance from the Department of Health - Developing commissioning support: Towards service excellence - makes a number of recommendations about how CCGs should function from 2013, including how the technical and ‘back-office’ functions should be provided.

Current PCT clusters are forming commissioning support units and from 2016 would be encouraged to form social enterprises and partner with the private sector.

These proposals would position commissioning support in a full-scale market and introduce commercially-focused criteria to determine who is eligible to provide this support. These criteria would make it very difficult for CCGs to employ their own commissioning support staff and for NHS commissioning support bodies evolving from existing PCT clusters to compete against large, established commercial organisations.

CCGs, the BMA says, would be left with little choice, but to use these large, commercial organisations to provide a huge range of commissioning support services, from transactional services such as payroll and IT services, to equipping CCGs with the complex and sensitive population data that inform commissioning decisions.

This could lead to an imbalance of power between clinical commissioners and large, commercial providers of support, undermining the government’s proposals for genuine clinician-led and locally-focused commissioning.

Dr Laurence Buckman, chairman of the BMA’s GP committee, said: “The government promised a greater role for clinicians in its plans to reform the NHS and created CCGs, placing local GPs and other healthcare professionals in a leading position in the commissioning process. Yet now it seems barriers are being put in place that would undermine the ability of clinicians to take local decisions.”

Read about another BMA representative running in protest at the Bill.