DrYesterday I had an article published in the Daily Telegraph, discussing the future of the NHS and how NFR believes the process towards achieving better healthcare for the UK population should be started.

To read to complete article click here.

I also urge you to take time to read the comments.  It is amazing not only how people interpret what I have said differently but also how people have completely different expectations of what the NHS should be and do.

DrThere has been a lot of publicity recently about the poor care given to patients by Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust

It has been found that patients were routinely neglected, left to die and “cared” for in appalling conditions.  For me though, one of the interesting and appalling things about this is that in all of the media reports I have listened to I heard few genuine apologies.  In the main hospital managers, so-called nursing leaders such as Dr Peter Carter the General Secretary of the Royal College of Nursing and various Politicians have all been rushing to shift the blame on to each other.  I have heard no one come up with any long-term plans to improve the situation and to stop patients from dying at the hands of the NHS.

One thing that NFR believes should not happen is a rush of new target driven reforms, it is time that the Government realised that all targets do is to pull resources away from patient care and in to the administration of reports to the Department of Health.

Radical reform is needed across the NHS it is time that the Government had less involvement not more in the delivery of patient treatment and care.  As a start, Mid-Staffordshire, and indeed all other failing NHS Trusts, must be given over to new management, ideally from the private sector as has happened here.  If hospitals or trusts continue to fail their patients they must expect to be closed or taken over by new management.

It is time that we stopped tolerating this NHS that is failing in its duty time and time again.

DrThis is a fantastic article by my friend and colleague Stephen Pollard welcoming David Cameron’s announcement that the Conservative Party, if they win the forthcoming general election, will allow public sector workers to run the services that they work in as co-operatives.  In truth this project will probably start in education but is likely to very quickly spread to healthcare services.

This is a real step in the right direction as far as Nurses for Reform is concerned.  As regular readers of this blog will recall, we have always championed the rediscovery of the UK’s wonderful history of mutual and co-operative funding and provision of healthcare and we are so happy that David Cameron and his Conservative Party are taking on our policy ideas (here, here and here).

For NFR the saddest part of this is that the people who should be welcoming the empowerment of their members more any other are against it Unite, the largest public sector union have been publicly condemning this move.  Well, shame on them.  They have now demonstrated that they are far more interested in playing politics than really looking after the interests of their members and the workers that they claim to represent.

Unite and indeed the Labour Party must welcome this policy, they have to see this as a triumph for their ideas.

DrIn line with public choice theory economics, I have long believed that health systems driven by greedy vote motivated politicians will have the opposite effect of their professed consequences. It is in this context that one expects to read articles like this. Billions spent and nothing to show for it.

A million miles away from the rhetoric of equality and all that top down pontificating beloved by our political class, the NHS and our wider welfare system is continually exposed for being a deeply dystopian and elitist operation. Its masters pretend otherwise. But, as Stephen Pollard and Andrew (now Lord) Adonis argued in their excellent book, A Class Act, Myth of Britain’s Classless Society,  the NHS is the microcosom of a class based system. That is what it is.

It has essentially white male doctors and administrators at the top and a raft of poorly paid ethnic minorities doing the auxiliary services at the bottom. As a system overseen by the ‘Royal’ Colleges, built on legislative favour, and which taxes ordinary people to the tune of more than £100 billion a year, is it any wonder that the poor are kept poor – and made ill earlier?

Forget social justice and equality. The key to making poor people healthier is to enable them to get rich. That is why government should get out of the way.  Indeed, it should allow welfare to flourish without the state. Forget politics and coercion. What we want is much more open, diverse and dynamic forms of health and welfare organised bottom up.

DrLadies and Gentlemen, in 1948 the British government put a leaflet through the door of every household. It said, in black and white, that: “the NHS will provide you with all medical, dental and nursing care. Everyone – rich or poor – can use it.”

Today, we live in a country where our political class is seemingly proud of the target that: “the longest you should wait after being referred by your GP until you start your treatment is 18 weeks”. More than 4 months. There is even a web site called:

www.18 weeks.nhs.uk !

Today, there are tens of thousands of people trying to get onto these waiting lists. Many are delayed so that the official 18 week clock does not start to tick.

According to Professor Julian LeGrand of the LSE, people from professional and managerial backgrounds access – on average – more than 40% more NHS resources per illness episode than those in lower social groupings. Today, 1 in 10 people in NHS hospitals pick up infections and illnesses that they did not have prior to being admitted. Over the last five years, more than 30,000 people have died from Healthcare Acquired Infections related to NHS care.

Indeed, things are now so bad in our state health service, that even basic nutrition has become an issue. According to the National Patients Safety Agency, NHS malnutrition incidents rose from 15,473 in 2005 to 29,138 in 2007. Overall, during this period, almost 70,000 NHS malnutrition and starvation “patient incidents” were reported.

Today, as students at this fine university, you are residing in a country that is a long way from the politicians’ promises of 1948. You are now in a country were where some 7 million people have private medical insurance. Where 6 million people have private health cash plans – many of them are members of trade unions. This year, 8 million will pay towards private complementary treatments. And many, many, tens of thousands of others will chose to self-fund for private surgery and treatment.

More than a quarter of all people in nursing and residential care homes now pay privately. Spectacles went private back in the 1980s. Dentistry is now going – as many of you will know – the same way.

Today, in 2010, the NHS is not doing all medical, dental and nursing care. Far from it.

Sometimes, the NHS does get things right. But, all too often, it does things badly. As my good friend Dr. Eamonn Butler put it a few years back:

““If a privatized health service had made many of its patients wait for 18 months for their operations, put them on trolleys in corridors when they arrived, given more than a quarter of them an illness which they did not have when they arrived, and confiscated the organs of their dead babies without bothering to seek their permission, or even to tell them, people would have blamed privatization. For that matter, if one of its practitioners had murdered 150 of his patients, or one of its surgeons had removed healthy kidneys instead of diseased ones, or one of its teams had conducted smear tests so incompetently that operable disease was not treated, while healthy women were unnecessarily subjected to distressing operations, all this would somehow have been put down to the reckless pursuit of profits, or to putting shareholders ahead of patients.

Now, given the side of the debate I am on this evening, I wish I could tell you that America has got it right. It has not. I wish I could tell you that America is a genuine free market system. But it is not. Instead, away from all the propaganda and all the statements of those greedy vote-motivated politicians, America has much more of a mixed economy than most on this side of the pond realise.

Today, the US taxpayer spends a fortune on its Federal healthcare programs: Medicare, Medicaid and S-Chip. Who do you think has the larger budget? The Pentagon; or US government healthcare programs? The Answer, is US government healthcare.

I ask you: historically, which government do you think has spent a greater proportion of its GDP on its government healthcare programs: Britain or America? Well, averaging the last thirty years, the answer is America.

We hear a lot in Britain about the poor in America. We hear a lot about the 45 million uninsured. But who are they? 17m of the 45m live in households with incomes above $50,000. That is 38% of the uninsured in America. 9 million – or 20% of the uninsured – live in households bringing in more than $75,000 a year. And then there are the young-invincibles. These are the 18m Americans aged between 18 and 34 who chose to spend 4 times as much on alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and dining out, than they do on out of pocket spending on healthcare. They represent 40% of the uninsured in America.

Today, US federal law dictates that American hospitals have to treat – irrespective of ability or willingness to pay – anyone who comes within 250 yards of their Accident and Emergency department. That, my friends, is why so many Americans don’t bother with insurance. Many know that the government will already be there for them.

Now, there are probably 9 million people in America who are genuinely outside the system. But they refuse assistance and help from all sectors: be it public, private or charitable. We have those people here too: the homeless, the dispossessed, the mentally ill. For whatever reason, they want to operate on the edge of the mainstream and tonight they will probably be looked after by the Salvation Army or a myriad other good people in the independent charitable sector.

I could have talked tonight about how an American cannot buy insurance from another state. Or how the government skews the whole US insurance system so it rests with employers. I could have talked about the need for tort law reform. But, I don’t have the time to touch on these matters.

Instead, I simply want you to understand the size of US government intervention in healthcare, and to understand that like our own system, it has precious little to do with a free market.

However, I still believe that the US system is generally, better than ours in the UK. Overall it provides better rounded, more timely care for patients of all backgrounds.  This not only means that in America patients have better access to the most up to date medicines, medical and surgical procedures. It also means that if they need a hip replacement or cardiac surgery they are not left for months, or years waiting in pain or unable to leave their homes, as happens in the UK.

Indeed, I believe both systems would be better if they were more open, diverse and competitive. In short, if they were more free market.

I am not a politician. I am not an eminent medical doctor. I am a nurse. I have worked in and around the NHS for more than 25 years. And my concern his high quality patient care.

Away from Westminster, the Royal College of Surgeons and all the other vested interests, it is people like me, day and night, at ward level, who know and can talk about, the harsh realities of the NHS.

What I know, is that in this country today, most families have a horror story about the care, they or a loved one, has received in the NHS. Today, I know people find it difficult to get GP appointments. People are not able to register with NHS dentists. Increasingly, they are not always able to get the ambulances they need… When they do get one, they sometimes wait outside accident and emergency departments because the hospitals are full. If they were let in, the hospital would fall fowl of government targets on length of wait.

More than 4 months waits to get treatment? MS patients denied Beta Interferon? Patients with Kidney Cancer unable to get drugs that could prolong their lives? Women with Breast cancer not able to get Herceptin? 1 in 10 patients picking up healthcare acquired infections? 30,000 dead in 5 years? 70,000 malnourished or starved? All this, on this little Island?

You take it from me; someone who really knows;  someone who cares, on the frontline; tonight you would rather be unwell in America than here in our nationalized, vote-motivated, health system.

Thank you.

DrNow this could be a really interesting opportunity to get some meaningful and sound reform of US healthcare along much freer market lines. When recently asked if inviting Republican Party leaders to the White House meant that President Obama was going to start from scratch, he responded:

“I think that what I want to do is to look at the Republican ideas that are out there, and I want to be very specific, how do you guys want to lower costs, how do [you] guys intend to reform the insurance markets so people with pre-existing conditions for example can get health care…and if we can [go] step-by-step through a series of these issues and arrive at some agreements, then procedurally there’s no reason why we can’t do it a lot faster than the process took last year”.

In truth, US libertarians at places like the CATO Institute,  the Independent Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute have invested huge amounts of time, energy and resources over recent years in developing and honing free market solutions to correct the state failures of American healthcare.

What makes Obama’s statement so interesting is not just that it is an admission that Obamacare One has effectively died, but perhaps to save his and his administration’s reputation, the White House appears to be casting around for viable and practical reforms rooted in the real world and not the quasi-Marxian crack pottery we saw during this administration’s first year in office.

This is all good news in as far as there is now a chance (albeit a very slim one) that the term ‘health reform’ might just become associated with the ideas of a freer market. As I have said many times before, in America the word reform has to be rescued from meaning more of the top-down statism beloved by the political class and its friends in the big anti-competitive corporates. Today, there might just be a chance that Obama is starting to understand this. Only, time will tell.

DrLast week, I spoke against the NHS and whole idea of socialised medicine at an Oxford Union debate. Against me were the usual political class types including Andrew Lansley MP (Conservative Shadow Secretary of State for Health), Kevin Barron MP (Labour), Norman Lamb MP (Liberal Democrat) and that doyen of producer power and legislative favour, the President of the British Medical Association, Professor Averil Mansfield.

It was a great evening and everyone enjoyed themselves hugely. I certainly did and was delighted to have on my side the top cancer specialist Dr. Karol Sikora. He has long demanded changes to the ‘Stalinist NHS Quango’ and all in all we had immense fun together.

DrAs this fabulous paper against the medical monopoly makes clear, state monopolies initially set up to protect standards in the name of public interest invariably degenerate into the total and utter reputational shambles that they pretend to oppose.

It is with this in mind that I recently noted this story .  You cannot make it up really. If only the Competition Commission would intervene to end the General Medical Council’s monopoly then perhaps things might start to turn around for doctors’ reputations.

For if allowed to chose, consumers would finally be free to decide between different brands, schools and philosophies of doctor. In such a world I would not chose a GMC doctor. Like millions of others, I would go out of my way to avoid members of an organisation that has consistently given the impression it exists to administer clubbable cover-ups for the benefit of its relatively well-healed members.

Come to think of it, why doesn’t the government allow a rival Competition Commission? Oh, no, silly me! That would be far too much like a market. Yes, it is much better to have one monopolist in the name of the ‘public interest’!

Serious point: to truly break state healthcare you have to sweep aside the medical monopoly. In the UK, that means removing the legislation that surrounds protected groups like the GMC. Like all other moral outfits they should stand or fall by their reputation in open, diverse and honorable competition. NFR says, let the people decide.

DrFollowing this post the Daily Mirror published this rather good article:  Apart from making the mistake that NFR is in anyway allied to the Tories (that is offensive!), it helps to get some important history out in the public domain. Intellectually, the NHS and the welfare-warfare state does have some unsavory roots that no one should deny.

Indeed, there have been two recent comments posted on this blog that are so good I have decided to reproduce them here. Here is number one;

“The history behind the NHS and the eugenics movement does have common elements, to pretend otherwise is to live in a fantasy world.

Specifically, it was the beginning of national health statistics in the late 19th century that led to the moral panic of “degeneracy”,which came from the combination of Darwinian ideas applied to social sciences, and the emergence of medical data about the health of working class people.

One part of this panic was to promote the idea of deliberately removing “undesirables”, a process begun in the USA in the early part of the 20th century, but applied most horrifically in Nazi occupied countries from 1933 onwards.

But the other, whilst less violent, had the same objective: the national improvement of collective healthcare. The Fabians originally believed that the “feeble minded” should be institutionalized (given electro-shock therapy), homosexuality was considered “a mental illness” and state control of hospitals became an ideological programme.

This is why Nazi Germany was the first European country to adopt major campaigns against smoking, and why the various prohibitionist movements were strong in late 19th-early 20th century USA and UK.

What part of the NHS’ rationing of healthcare to deny treatment for old people, or smokers, or the obese, do the commentators above think Hitler would object to? I can think of none. As for the smoking ban in pubs: no fascist dictator would have dared introduced such a thing, but Hitler, would certainly approve.

As for A Davidson, I would merely point out, that it seems wise to ask if the reasons for Hitler’s support for socialized healthcare (which you admit) are bad, shouldn’t we consider them? If Hitler was right to think that socilized medicine would advance racialist policies, are we wrong to make sure this does not happen?

One last thought. Harold Shipman. Clearly, this was an extreme individual, but his attitude towards patients was entirely logical, once one accepted the notion that it is not the patient to control healthcare provision or objectives.”

Now, for those of you interested in the burgeoning literature and research into this history – much of it written by socialist writers – see comment number two:

“Even those who like the NHS have to accept that it does have some very strange intellectual underpinnings.

It is curious how the existence of an alliance of statist Toryism and Socialism has fallen out of any popular consciousness. One of the few studies can be found in Semmel, B., (1960) Imperialism and State Reform: English Social-Imperial Thought, 1895-1914, Harvard University Press, Cambridge M.A. There is a growing literature on eugenics, ‘right wing’ (that is, anti-capitalist and anti-liberal) social Darwinism and paternalism. See: Searle, G. R, (1971) The Quest for National Efficiency, Oxford Universisty Press, Oxford and (1986) Social Hygiene in Twentieth Century Britain, Croom Helm, London. Soloway, R. A., (1990) Demography and Degeneration: Eugenics and the Declining Birthrate in Twentieth Century Britain, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Some socialist scholars are also beginning to reconsider the origins and nature of the rise of the welfare state in light of such evidence. See: Skocpol, T., (1992) Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States, Belknap Press/Harvard University Press, Cambridge M.A. Jamieson, L., and Corr, H., (eds) (1990) State, Private Life and Political Change, Macmillan, London. Dwork, D., (1987) War is Good For Babies and Other Young Children, Tavistock Publications, London.

Under analysis, the origins of the welfare state looks less like the pure juice of human kindness and altruism, a liberation of the masses, and increasingly more like authoritarian social engineering for the sake of national strength, war or racial hygiene.”

DrWhile it has long been apparent that vast swathes of the trade union movement promote private healthcare as a benefit of membership – remember this – and indeed many of the movement’s leaders have long avoided state healthcare, NFR passionately believes that trade unions are important in civil society.

As voluntary associations, trade union aligned friendly societies, mutuals and co-operatives have glorious histories and ones that we can learn from today. Born of the market and representing a wide range of diverse ownership philosophies one can actually make a good case that with its mutualist and charitable roots, Britain’s historic independent sector owes more of its history to workers, the labour movement and a worthy concern for the poor than to any political tribe of the so-called right.

This is a serious point. For NFR believes that to become more relevant and useful in the twenty first century, trade unions should consider using their large memberships and economies of scale to forge even better strategic alliances for the benefit of members. Indeed, politicians should stop penalizing trade union aligned, or for that matter, any other sort of independent healthcare. Instead, these good things should receive a much friendlier treatment in the taxation and legal spheres.

Next Page »