I should have said 2015, not 2010!

On 20/05/2014, Calum Paton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> For your interest - see below
>
> best Calum
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Calum Paton <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 17:56:25 +0100
> Subject: Re: FW: Exclusive: Labour inquiry finds 'evidence' for
> repealing Health Act
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
>
> This is rather like the thinking in Labour's 1992 paper Your Good
> Health, in some ways, which presented the results of Robin Cook's
> review in the light of the 1990 Act (the Thatcher reforms.)......or at
> least the same philosophy of keeping the planning-management
> distinction rather than the full purchaser-provider split.
>
> The rest was history! Labour lost in 1992, and if it loses in 2010, we
> may expect the same consequences only worse.
>
> Incidentally, re ii. a. of Debbie Abrahams' conclusions, below
> (investigating the costs and benefits of 'closing the
> purchaser-provider split', if I may so paraphrase!) - see my paper for
> CHPI on a framework for thinking this through:
>
> www.chpi.org.uk  (Calum Paton, At what cost? Paying the price for the
> market in the NHS')
>
> Very best, Calum
>
>
>
> On 20/05/2014, David McDaid <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: The Health Equity Network (HEN)
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott-Samuel,
>> Alex
>> Sent: 20 May 2014 15:30
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Exclusive: Labour inquiry finds 'evidence' for repealing Health
>> Act
>>
>> Exclusive: Labour inquiry finds 'evidence' for repealing Health Act
>> James Illman<http://www.hsj.co.uk/james-illman/1202776.bio>
>> HSJ, 20 May, 2014
>> http://tinyurl.com/ofcoqxt
>> An inquiry by an influential Labour policy group has concluded that
>> markets
>> in healthcare increase inequalities and that the Health Act 2012 should
>> be
>> repealed.
>> The review by the Parliamentary Labour Party health committee, whose
>> findings have been shared exclusively with HSJ, was chaired by Debbie
>> Abrahams, who is the parliamentary private secretary to shadow health
>> secretary Andy Burnham.
>> The work, which compared international health systems, will be used as
>> platform for Labour to further develop its health policy in the run up to
>> next year’s general election.
>> Ms Abrahams, a public health expert and former chair of NHS
>> organisations,
>> told HSJ in an interview that the inquiry provided “concrete evidence”
>> that
>> the Health Act 2012 needed to be repealed.
>> The final report, called An Inquiry Into The Effectiveness Of
>> International
>> Health Systems, concluded that competition can “impede quality, including
>> increasing hospitalisation rates and mortality”.
>> It says Labour must redefine “the terms for private healthcare providers’
>> involvement in the NHS”.
>> Ms Abrahams and a panel have been taking evidence from sector experts and
>> reviewing literature since autumn 2012. The inquiry carried out
>> “comparative
>> analysis” of the health systems of 15 countries including the UK,
>> Australia,
>> France, Germany, Japan and the US.
>> Ms Abrahams explained to HSJ how she believed repealing the Health Act
>> 2012
>> could insulate the NHS from European competition rules.
>> Some have argued competition rules would apply even if the Act, or parts
>> of
>> it, were
>> repealed<http://www.mhpc.com/health/procuring-controversy-why-i-dont-buy-the-argument-that-section-75-leads-to-privatisation/>,
>> because of Europe-wide rules.
>> Ms Abrahams said the legislation had “exposed the NHS to the perils of EU
>> competition law” because it changed the status of NHS trusts and
>> foundation
>> trusts.
>> She told HSJ: “The act has competition at the heart of it. One of the
>> measures they used to facilitate this is the increase in the private
>> patient
>> income cap to 49 per cent.
>> “This and the other measures, including s75 and establishing Monitor as
>> the
>> economic regulator, could be argued changed the status of the NHS in the
>> eyes of the [European] Commission from pursuing social objectives to
>> economic ones.”
>> The act changed the limit on the proportion of income foundation trusts
>> could receive from private patients to 49 per cent. It had previously
>> been
>> fixed at just a few per cent for most FTs.
>> Meanwhile, the inquiry report also recommends Labour further “review the
>> evolution needed by health and wellbeing boards and clinical
>> commissioning
>> groups to enable them to integrate budgets and jointly direct spending
>> plans”. Labour has not yet clarified the details of how it would change
>> the
>> commissioning system.
>> Recommendations from an inquiry into the effectiveness of international
>> health systems, by Debbie Abrahams
>>  i. NHS funding, allocating resources and payment models
>> a. Restore the key principle of NHS resources allocated based on health
>> need
>> (and health inequalities)
>> b. Develop a ‘Healthcare For All’ funding model: Undertake a review of
>> NHS
>> resource allocation formulae and budgets in order to simplify and develop
>> a
>> new resource allocation model reflecting NHS principles and values
>> c. Analyse and develop alternative healthcare provider payment models
>> based
>> on quality, equity and capitation rather than activity/utilisation and
>> ‘choice’
>> d. Review the evolution needed by Health & Well Being Boards (HWBs) and
>> Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) to enable them to integrate budgets
>> and
>> jointly direct spending plans for the NHS and social care
>> ii. Organisation of the NHS
>> a. Undertake a prospective assessment of the costs and benefits
>> associated
>> with an integrated, collaborative and planned approach to commissioning
>> and
>> providing healthcare in improving quality and equity in healthcare and
>> social care
>> b. Ensure that privatisation of the NHS is prevented by exempting the NHS
>> from EU/US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and ensuring
>> corporate healthcare providers’ investment is not protected beyond
>> current
>> contracts
>> c. Ensure that a duty to ‘co-operate and collaborate’ is placed on CCGs
>> and
>> local authorities, and on NHS Trusts with local authorities including
>> social
>> care providers
>> d. Define the terms for private healthcare providers’ involvement in the
>> NHS, in particular in the provision of clinical services
>> e. Review how to strengthen the democratic accountability of the NHS,
>> including, for example, through locally accountable HWBs
>> iii. Integration in the NHS
>> a. Build on and supplement the evidence-base on integration within and
>> between the NHS and social care with particular emphasis on quality and
>> equity, for example through action-research pilots including single
>> budgets
>> for health and social care
>> b. Develop national standards for integrating the NHS and social care
>> focusing on quality and equity, with local approaches for implementation
>> c. Develop holistic, ‘whole person care’ approaches to support people
>> with
>> long term conditions, and explore opportunities for NHS and Department
>> for
>> Work and Pensions (DWP) collaboration in this
>> iv. Research and surveillance
>> a. Restore data collected to monitor health inequalities including the
>> former ‘dicennial supplement’ inequalities data
>> b. Within existing research budgets, increase the proportion of research
>> into the health system wide effects of interventions such as organisation
>> and resourcing on quality and equity in health and care
>> c. Implement Health Equity Impact Assessment: assess the effects on
>> health
>> systems, of local and national policies including all sectors of
>> government
>> as part of the Impact Assessment process
>>
>>
>> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic
>> communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>>
>