JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for HEALTH-EQUITY-NETWORK Archives


HEALTH-EQUITY-NETWORK Archives

HEALTH-EQUITY-NETWORK Archives


HEALTH-EQUITY-NETWORK@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

HEALTH-EQUITY-NETWORK Home

HEALTH-EQUITY-NETWORK Home

HEALTH-EQUITY-NETWORK  May 2003

HEALTH-EQUITY-NETWORK May 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Parliamentary committee report on proposed foundation hospitals in England

From:

"Mcdaid,D" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mcdaid,D

Date:

Wed, 7 May 2003 08:21:52 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (37 lines)

(Apols for cross posting)

Dear Colleagues

The House of Commons (Lower House) of the British Parliament's select committee on health have just published their report examining the possible introduction of what are called foundation hospitals in England.

The report does not yet appear to be available electronically but a a press release and statement from the Chair of the Select Committee David Hinchliffe is available at

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/health_committee/hc060503_21.cfm

News story also at BBC news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3005281.stm


Excerpt from Press Release Below

Best wishes

David McDaid
LSE Health and Social Care

6th May 2003

This has been a difficult inquiry for the Committee, on which a full spectrum of perspectives on these issues is represented. The proposals for Foundation Trusts are also extremely broad and technically complex, and are developing day by day, meaning that even in the short time between our report being agreed and being published Government thinking on some of these policies may have changed. Nevertheless I am very pleased that as a Committee we were able to find a lot of common ground in our analysis of the Government's proposals, and I hope the report is able to shed light on these proposals and make a useful contribution to debate on this issue. 
The debate about equity and two-tierism is already well trodden. Although we recognise that the NHS is not currently a level playing field, but has many layers of performance, we have not had any evidence during the course of this inquiry to reassure us that the introduction of Foundation Trusts will not entrench inequalities still further. The Secretary of State told us a level playing field would be created within four to five years but I find the logic behind the statement unconvincing. As trusts will have to achieve 3-stars in order to qualify for Foundation status, how can we be confident that non-Foundation trusts will improve their performance that dramatically and quickly when, as the report notes, the performance of approximately 70% of trusts in the star-ratings system either remained the same or fell between 2001-2002? If Foundation Trusts, through their increased access to resources, are able to develop their services in a way that lowers waiting times or improves quality, GPs and patients will choose to use their services rather than those of poorer-performing local hospitals. As money follows patients, poorer performing hospitals will see their revenue streams dry up and will have even less to invest in improving services, locking them into a downward spiral of poor performance. We heard evidence from the Chair of University College London Hospitals Trust who fully expected that Foundation status would enable his trust to attract patients from other hospitals. The report is clear that this is not acceptable: 
"We believe that the introduction of Foundation Trusts, coupled with increased patient choice, has the potential to alter the distribution of hospital services ... early implementers of Foundation status will attract more resources, as well as perhaps attracting more and higher calibre staff, which given current shortages in many professions may be at the expense of other worse performing hospitals. The potential for inequity posed by Foundation Trusts therefore needs to be addressed".
I have long been a strong advocate of introducing democracy into the NHS, and I welcome efforts to get local people involved in running their health services. However, for me possibly the most damaging part of these reforms is that they will channel patient involvement enthusiasm and loyalty onto an acute hospital, undermining the step change we have seen in recent years away from acute care, towards exploring primary care and community based options. This will be only compounded by the enhanced status and resources Foundation Trusts will attract."
Summary 
The Health Committee has published its report on Foundation Trusts, coinciding with the Second Reading of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. Political opinion remains divided over many of the fundamental questions underlying the Government's proposals for Foundation Trusts, and these broad issues will be the subject of considerable debate as the legislation necessary to introduce Foundation Trusts is presented to Parliament. Rather than attempting to anticipate these discussions, this report instead concentrates in detail on the practicalities of the policies set out in the Government's Guide to Foundation Trusts. The report examines two key issues: will the proposed changes bring about improvements for patients who are treated by Foundation hospitals? And what implications will the proposed changes have for patients being treated in the rest of the NHS? 
Exploring the potential impact of these proposals on the rest of the NHS, the report concludes that as the proposals stand, they pose a threat to the equity of service provision, one of the founding principles of the NHS:
While we welcome the Government's aim to ensure 'a level playing field' within the NHS, we feel that the Secretary of State may be being too ambitious in assuming that it will be possible to introduce Foundation status to all NHS trusts within four to five years. During the time that star ratings have been in operation, the record shows that the performance of 70% of trusts either remained static or fell. Early implementers of Foundation status will attract more resources, as well as perhaps attracting more and higher calibre staff, which given current shortages in many professions may be at the expense of other worse performing hospitals. The potential for inequity posed by Foundation Trusts therefore needs to be addressed. 
The report argues that the introduction of Foundation Trusts, has the potential, in some areas at least, to lead to wage inflation and aggressive poaching of staff: 
Our evidence suggests that in local health economies where trusts, PCTs and other health organisations have close and well developed working relationships, the introduction of Foundation Trusts may be less likely to result in wage inflation and aggressive staff poaching. However, in areas where links between local partners function less well, and in areas of high mobility and workforce shortages, for example London, we believe that these problems may emerge. 
The report expresses concerns that using star ratings as a 'one way' gateway to Foundation status could give rise to serious contradictions within the NHS performance rating system, and that current proposals lack adequate incentives for Foundation Trusts to maintain or improve their performance. The report recommends that if these proposals go ahead, Foundation status should be piloted with all trusts in a given geographical area, to help to evaluate how the system would operate in the long term. If these reforms are introduced, steps will need to be taken to prevent the introduction of Foundation Trusts from undoing the recent shift in emphasis from secondary to primary care, and stronger safeguards will be needed to ensure continued co-operation between the primary and secondary care sectors.
The report notes that many of the representatives from prospective Foundation Trusts who gave oral evidence to the Committee were in support of the extra freedoms and the new governance arrangements proposed in the Foundation Trusts model. The report argues that changes that would need to be made to current proposals if they are to bring about genuine improvements for NHS patients who are treated by Foundation Trusts. Care will need to be taken to ensure that new accountability arrangements do not leave Foundation Trusts more encumbered with bureaucracy than their predecessors. It is inappropriate to leave the determination of systems for democratic accountability entirely at the discretion of individual NHS trusts, as this could lead to a system of patient and public involvement that is fragmented, confusing and inequitable. Equally, if Foundation Trusts' Boards of Governors are to wield real power, it is imperative that their relationship with PCTs, including how disputes will be solved, is established on a transparent national basis. Foundation Trusts will also need to be better integrated into the national system for Patient and Public Involvement than is currently being proposed. 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager