Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

NHS Reform vote passed - what will it mean?

86 replies

CeliaFate · 07/09/2011 19:34

Everyone I follow on Twitter (journos and media types) are lamenting what they see as the demise of the NHS. What are the planned reforms?

OP posts:
VivaLeBeaver · 12/10/2011 07:43

A friend of mine 12 months ago was told dhe needed a knee replacement by her consultant. She wasn't sure and went away for quite a few months to think about it. Decidided to go for it and went back to be told that now she can't have it. Her knee hasn't improved but it now "doesn't meet criteria" so the PCT or whoever it is these days won't fund it. She is left limping and in pain. I suspect there will be a lot more of this.

eicosapentaenoic · 12/10/2011 10:02

Viva,
:( So sorry. We had same with grandad.

Again, it depends which flippin' PCT/whoever you're in and how canny you are with doc-shopping at the orthopaedic centre of excellence. Somewhere else/another consultant might've squeezed her in no prob. Still might, don't give up. She could find out clinical/surgery criteria from www.nhs.uk/Pages/HomePage.aspx and find A. Random-Doc who says she meets it. Or go private. Even then the dude might do it NHS if he thinks it's justified. This is how it is, guys - survival of the competitive and fittest Confused so get in training.

TBH I am welcoming improvement of accessibility (fed up of trying to be ill only during working hours or once a week am only when the specialist's actually in, or waiting months till it's bad enough to qualify as urgent). I also enjoy an occasional private provider, NHS or cash, although DD is uninsurable with chronic eye inflammation.

I am worried about:

  • nasty stuff slipping through unnoticed, as above
  • waste-of-money incompetent bureaucratic budget controllers preventing cash reaching the rockface without listening to practitioners (as county education authorities do now from schools)
  • erosion of world-class training and research structure
  • sharing of medical history and notes (private sector medico-legal will advise them not to do this)
  • patient access to medical history and notes

My biggest worry is actually NOTES and patient history on which clinical decisions must be made between providers. Does anyone believe they will/can actually share without IT?

Woodifer · 12/10/2011 19:28

Not looking good in the Lords :(

edam · 12/10/2011 19:35

Damn the Lords, I had hoped against hope that they would send it to committee. Can't believe they are going to nod it through. Idiots. Even the DH doesn't understand the dratted bill - they keep answering all questions with a vague 'oh, the details can be worked out later'. That is NOT the way laws work, once the legislation is written, this government or any subsequent administration will say 'oh, sorry, the secretary of state isn't responsible for A, B, C, D right the way through to Z any more'.

eicosapentaenoic · 12/10/2011 21:12

Yep, I wrote to a peer through 38degrees website about the medical notes issue that bugs me so much. He kindly replied fast but he too said details like that would be worked out later. Ie he wanted to just crack on with the changes. But if the principle of access and sharing is not enshrined in law at this point, private providers will be reluctant. I hope we haven't lost right of access to our own medical histories.

eicosapentaenoic · 12/10/2011 22:06

www.bma.org.uk/lobbying_campaigning/healthsocbilltracker.jsp
Here we are, at Committee Stage: This is when the clause by clause consideration of the Bill takes place and is the first opportunity for amendments to be tabled. In the Lords the Committee Stage is usually taken by a Committee of the Whole House.
38degrees.org.uk/campaigns
www.theyworkforyou.com/peers/
Some peers were complaining during the debate that their lobbying was too general and misinformed, so if you want to write to them, research your peer's background and facts of the Bill to be most effective. Some professional bodies have set up lobbying links too. Good luck.

eicosapentaenoic · 16/10/2011 17:55

'The vote on the Owen-Hennessey amendment calling for a select committee was not a vote in favour of the present health and social care bill. Many peers have deep concerns about aspects of the bill. It was a vote in favour of the clauses on the secretary of state's responsibilities going to a committee of the whole house, not to a relatively small committee. Why? Because the Lords believe they have a unique array of medical, legal and political experience able to scrutinise and change this long, complex and obscure bill. Already amendments are pouring in by the score, many from peers who voted against the Owen-Hennessey proposal.' Shirley Williams, Lib Dem, House of Lords
If you want to influence this Bill, time to lobby peers for amendments.

frumpet · 18/10/2011 22:32

The choose and book system is utter tosh , i tried to use it once , rang the department who i would be dealing with and they said i needed to be seen within two weeks tops , rang the book and choose people and they said they couldnt find a free appointment for eight weeks . So i rang the department back and got in within two weeks . I also hated the fact that the GP made it sound as though you had been refered to a consultant , you havent you have been refered to the choose and book system which sends a list of consultants from which you can choose . How the hell you are supposed to know which one is best for you andwhich had the shortest wait god only knows . I also found the paperwork very complicated , and i pity anyone with poor eyesight or any cognitive impairment trying to work their way through it , they would probably die before getting any sort of appointment , although maybe thats the idea .

eicosapentaenoic · 29/10/2011 20:20

Frumpet, Lord knows. They just make this stuff up IME. 'Phoned the department, appointment in 2wks. Like your style.

eicosapentaenoic · 07/11/2011 23:13

This is useful healthandcare.dh.gov.uk/factsheets Smile

Mostlymum · 05/01/2012 02:04

Should the bill be passed in its current form there will be an increase in private providers.

Why is this bad?

Here are 10 of the reasons why I am worried

  1. Competition occurs in markets - the idea being it will drive prices down- think ASDA. TESCO etc, what happened to the small shops and the big ones that could not compete? (Think KWIKSAVE, SAFEWAY) they were bought out or folded up, what happened to the staff? Unemployed, working elsewhere).
  1. Private companies pick and choose the easy, safe bits of work.
I read a BMA report that said that research indicates some independent treatment centres run at less than full capacity yet get money for running at 100%
  1. Private companies are not obliged to share information in the same way as NHS bodies.

Private healthcare providers cannot be compelled in the same way to release information - so what happens when things go wrong? Thinking about all the inquiries into failures in healthcare recently.

  1. Major changes are taking place on the ground before the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament.
Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) and Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) are to be abolished, it's not clear what shape the new bodies are to take, guidance keeps coming out but it?s incomplete. As no one is clear about the final shape there are concerns about how to plan the hand over to an organisation in an unknown form that is due to exist by April 2013...
  1. There are real worries about the doctor-patient relationship being eroded if the PCT no longer buys your care.
For e.g. If your GP is buying your care- he will need it to be cheap, close and good, but how then can you be sure when you see him for a problem and he decides to refer -( or not refer you) if he is being unbiased in his choice? Remember he has between 1500- 5000 patients overall, of that number he sees maybe 20% regularly. His budget allowance will probably be accounted for that number. A PCT on the other had has people who have been buying in care on a regional basis for ages, have an eye to which providers do what and how good they are. Large cover - better buying power and less bias. (I am oversimplifying a major concern here about ethics and a doctor?s duty of care to his patient first rather than to a commercial provider and indeed his ability to choose)
  1. Keeping people with less, getting less, and the rich getting the rich pickings, widening health inequalities, call it what you will.

'Choice' is all well and good but those who can afford private care will always go to the top of the queue; will be better informed and so always get the best available. The problem is that those who cant suffer indirectly as a result. A surgeon who is contracted to spend 37.5 hours in the NHS may choose to spend his 'sparetime' doing private ops- so he is tired the next day seeing NHS patients or if the person had a complication- it's back to the NHS which means someone waiting for a routine op gets bumped. Less perceptible is the little things that add up, the secretary does private referral letters in NHS time cos it's only one or two, the GP prescribes medicine to a private patient as it's extra cost to get that private too, so they delay doing a home visit for a few minutes, but it all adds up such that those who don't pay get a slightly worse deal, but on a population level it's massive. When a hospital is doing private and non private work how do they draw the line between the two?

  1. There are a whole range of worries about who will train the next generation of doctors- it's sort of been fudged over in the Bill, who will deal with outbreaks and other public health emergencies. Think- if SARS came or a teacher had TB in school or a child came to school that later had meningitis or went to a farm and then got poorly with E.coli. Who steps in to sort it and has an overview of who needs what?
  1. Before any new policy is released it is reviewed and its pros and cons looked at, something called a risk register is produced which basically tells the Government what the downsides are of a new policy being put into force. Despite repeated FOI request the Risk register on the Bill is yet to be released!
  1. Concerns about missing words or the wording of the Bill that fundamentally change it from being about the NHS providing care for ALL to having discretion over whom to provide care for....Doctors leaders are fighting for that to be amended
  1. NHS hospitals will be able to devote half their beds to private patients, (well 49%). What?s that going to do to waiting times? Even if everyone on the waiting list could afford to ?go private? the waiting times won?t improve!

At the moment the NHS gets along and its pretty clear who should do what. Under the new Bill the distinctions become far less clear.

Maybe we will end up with a totally pay-for health services with only those on very low / no incomes being allowed a free service. How easy is it to get dental care, or glasses, this is what will happen to healthcare. As for the 'less sexy' bits where no profits can be made {{shudder}}

These are just off the top of my head; there is far more definitive stuff here:
bevansrun.blogspot.com/p/welcome-to-bevans-run.html

www.38degrees.org.uk/page/content/NHS-legal-advice/ explains the bit about removing the Secretary Of State?s Duty to Provide

www.gponline.com/News/article/1106584/DoH-will-not-release-documents-NHS-reform-risks/ WHY?????

New posts on this thread. Refresh page