MPs to discuss reform of UK"s Victorian-era abortion law

In years to come, it may be regarded as one of the last battles for women’s autonomy. Under an obscure Victorian law, passed when women did not even have the vote, the decision to terminate an unplanned pregnancy using pills in the privacy of a home is punishable by life in prison – for the woman and any doctor who helps her.

Now MPs are to discuss for the first time de-criminalising women who attempt to bring about their own abortion.

In modern-day Britain, most abortions take place before 12 weeks with the aid of pills. Yet if a woman orders those pills online and takes them without the consent of two doctors, she can be jailed. So can a doctor who gives them to her to take at home instead of in the clinic.

Diana Johnson, MP for Hull North, will introduce a ten-minute-rule bill in the House of Commons on Monday calling for the scrapping of section 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which make abortion a criminal offence.

“Women buying the pills on the internet to bring about a miscarriage are committing a criminal act which is punishable by life imprisonment,” she said. “Parliament should consider whether that is appropriate.”

Over 200 law professors and legal experts have signed a letter to the Guardian in support of Johnson’s bill. “Abortion is currently an offence in English law by virtue of an archaic and punitive statute passed at the midpoint of the reign of Queen Victoria,” they write. The penalty of life imprisonment “is the harshest penalty for abortion imposed anywhere in Europe”.

The 1861 criminal law also fails to acknowledge any difference between late abortion and an early abortion before 12 weeks when the foetus is not viable.

“Many countries in Europe recognise that a woman has the right to end an early pregnancy,” they write. “In our view, the onus is now on those who wish to retain the threat of prosecuting women to explain why this offers a justifiable part of our response to the problem of unwanted pregnancy.”

Professor Sally Sheldon from Kent University, who coordinated the letter, said the law was wrong in principle. “Why do we want to keep the framework and the criminal prohibition? I don’t hear people saying it is a good idea to be able to send women to prison for life for having an abortion outside of medical control.”

The Victorian law underlies the 1967 Act introduced by Liberal MP David Steel to end the deaths of women after backstreet abortions. It made exceptions to the 1861 criminal offence where two doctors certified it was in the interests of a woman’s health to have an abortion, which must take place on registered medical premises.

That was seen as liberal at the time, but is restrictive today, say critics, when early abortion, before 12 weeks, can be accomplished by taking two types of pill, up to two days apart. Women who suffer a partial miscarriage are given the same pills to take home to complete the process. Women having an abortion must take them in front of a doctor.

“Women will take the [second dose of] pills and try to rush home before the miscarriage begins,” said Sheldon. “If the woman has got a long journey, it is horrible for her.”

New research by Dr Ellie Lee, director of the Centre for Parenting Culture Studies at Kent University, and colleagues into the concerns of 14 doctors who provide abortion shows that some feel the law prevents them doing a safe and professional job. “It’s extraordinary that you can subject women to travelling mid-abortion [after they have taken both drugs used to induce miscarriage],” said one.

In Northern Ireland, which did not pass the 1967 act, women have been prosecuted for obtaining abortion pills online and using them. Last year a 21-year-old woman was given a suspended sentence after she pleaded guilty to procuring her own abortion by using a poison, and of supplying a poison with intent to procure a miscarriage – two offences under the Victorian legislation.

If the 1861 act was repealed, the 1967 act which amends it would also fall, but abortion could be better regulated in the health rather than criminal sphere, by medical bodies such as the General Medical Council or royal colleges, says Johnson.

“I do think the time has come 50 years on from the 1967 act to at least look at the criminal offence of abortion and do something about it. Decriminalisation is not the same as deregulation,” said Johnson.

Ann Furedi, Bpas chief executive, called the law “offensive and absurd”.

The 19th century law

Section 58, Offences Against the Person Act, 1861.

Every woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison… or unlawfully use any instrument… shall be liable … to be kept in penal servitude for life.

The law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland governing abortion is based on the law dating back to the middle years of the Victorian era. Scotland was more liberal at that time. Common law made abortion a criminal offence unless performed for “reputable medical reasons”, which effectively meant few prosecutions.

This 1861 criminal law is the foundation stone still of the abortion regulation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In 1929, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act was passed creating a further criminal offence of the deliberate destruction of a child capable of being born alive.

The 1967 act was a response to the deaths of women as a result of backstreet abortions. It made abortion legal up to 28 weeks gestation if it was carried out by a doctor, with the written agreement of a second doctor, on registered premises. The upper limit was reduced to 24 weeks in 1990. The 1967 act was not passed in Northern Ireland, where abortion is now a devolved issue, as in Scotland.

MPs to discuss reform of UK"s Victorian-era abortion law

A key proposal for abortion law reform | Letters

As experts in law, we write to commend Diana Johnson MP for her 10-minute rule bill. The bill, which is due to be heard on 13 March, offers an important first step towards taking pre-viability abortion out of the criminal law.

Abortion is currently an offence in English law by virtue of an archaic and punitive statute passed at the midpoint of the reign of Queen Victoria. Under its terms, any woman who ends her own pregnancy at any stage of gestation is potentially liable for life imprisonment. This is the harshest penalty for abortion imposed anywhere in Europe.

The statute is also unusual in failing to distinguish between abortions at different stages of pregnancy; many countries in Europe recognise that a woman has the right to end an early pregnancy.

Non-consensual abortion or dangerous or negligent abortion services offered by third parties are appropriately subject to legal sanction and would remain so following the removal of specific criminal prohibitions on abortion, under general provisions of criminal law.

However, in our view, the onus is now on those who wish to retain the threat of prosecuting women to explain why this offers a justifiable part of our response to the problem of unwanted pregnancy.
Professor Sally Sheldon
Kent Law School, University of Kent
Nick Beard
Student
Ruth Fletcher
Senior lecturer in medical law, Queen Mary University London
Professor Marie Fox
Professor of law, University of Liverpool
Jillian Merchant
Solicitor, Glasgow
Catherine O’Rourke
Senior lecturer in human rights and international law, University of Ulster
Elizabeth Prochaska
Barrister, Matrix Chambers
Laura Robinson
Student
Richard Stein
Leigh Day Solicitors
Poppy Wilkinson
Student
Sheelagh McGuinness
Senior lecturer, University of Bristol
All the above Lawyers for Choice Steering Committee Group
Professor Peter Alldridge
Professor of law, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Richard Ashcroft
Professor of bioethics, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Diamond Ashiagbor
Professor of law, University of London
Professor Peter Bartlett
Professor of law, University of Nottingham
Professor Vikki Bell
Goldsmiths, University of London
Professor Lois S Bibbings
Professor of law, gender and history, University of Bristol Law School
Professor Hazel Biggs
Professor of law, University of Southampton
Professor Jo Bridgeman
Professor of healthcare law and feminist ethics, University of Sussex
Professor Gillian Calder
Associate dean, University of Victoria
Professor John Coggon
Professor of law, University of Bristol
Professor Richard Collier
Professor of law, Newcastle University
Professor Dave Cowan
Professor of law and barrister, Bristol University
Professor Sharon Cowan
Professor of law, University of Edinburgh
Professor Richard de Friend
Retired professor of law
Professor Gillian Douglas
Professor of law, Cardiff University
Professor Jocelyn Downie
Professor of law, Dalhousie University
Professor Lindsay Farmer
Professor of law, University of Glasgow
Professor John Fitzpatrick
Director of Kent Law Clinic, University of Kent
Professor Judy Fudge
Professor of law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Professor Penny Green
Professor of law, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Elspeth Guild
Professor of law, Queen Mary University of London
Professor John Harrington
Professor of global health law, Cardiff University
Professor Didi Herman
Professor of law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Professor Tamara Hervey
Professor of law, University of Sheffield
Professor Kathryn Hollingsworth
Professor of law, Newcastle University
Professor Rosemary Hunter
Professor of law and socio-legal studies, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Emily Jackson
London School of Economics
Professor Marie-Andree Jacob
Professor of law, Keele University
Professor Jennifer Koshan
Professor of law, University of Calgary
Professor Kate Malleson
Professor of law, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Wade Mansell
Emeritus professor, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Professor Judith Masson
Professor of law, University of Bristol
Professor Jonathan Montgomery
Professor of healthcare law, Faculty of Laws, University College London
Professor Linda Mulcahy
London School of Economics
Professor Vanessa Munro
Professor of law, University of Warwick
Professor Richard Nobles
Professor of law, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Colm O’Cinneide
Professor of law, University College London
Professor Nicky Prialux
Professor of law, Cardiff School of Law
Professor Muirrean Quigley
Professor of law, Newcastle University
Professor Jo Samanta
Professor of medical law, De Montfort University
Professor Ralph Sandland
Professor of law, School of Law, University of Nottingham
Professor Jo Shaw
Professor of law, University of Edinburgh
Professor Ann Stewart
Professor of law, University of Warwick
Professor Carl Stychin
Dean and professor of law, City Law School,
University of London
Professor Michael Thomson
Professor of health law, University of Leeds
Professor Steve Uglow
Professor of law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Professor Katrin Voltmer
Professor of law, University of Leeds
Professor Celia Wells
University of Bristol
Professor Toni Williams
Professor of law, head of Kent Law School, University of Kent
Professor Chris Willmore
Professor of law, Bristol University
Dr Donatella Alessandrini
Reader in law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Nicola Barker
Senior lecturer in Law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Kate Bedford
Reader in law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Joanne Beswick
Lecturer in law, Staffordshire University
Dr Christine Beuermann
Lecturer in law, Newcastle Law School
Dr Karen Brennan
Lecturer in law, University of Essex
Rachel Cahill-O’Callaghan
Lecturer in law, Cardiff University
Dr Paul James Cardwell
Reader in law, University of Sheffield
Dr Shazia Choudhry
Reader in law, Queen Mary University of London
Dr David Churchill
Lecturer in criminal justice, University of Leeds
Dr Emilie Cloatre
Reader in law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Emma Cunliffe
Associate professor, Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia
Margaret Duckett
Lecturer in midwifery, University of Southampton
Dr Marian Duggan
Lecturer in law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Rachel Fenton
Senior lecturer in law, University of the West of England
Dr Jennifer Fleetwood
Lecturer in criminology, University of Leicester
Dr Ruth Fletcher
Senior lecturer in law, Queen Mary University of London
Dr Sara Fovargue
Reader in law, Lancaster University
Dr Nikki Godden-Rasul
Lecturer in law, Newcastle University
Dr Imogen Goold
Associate professor, University of Oxford
Dr Emily Grabham
Reader in law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Paul Gragl
Senior lecturer in law, Queen Mary University of London
Dr Kate Greasley
Lecturer in Law, University College London
Dr Samantha Halliday
Associate professor, University of Leeds
Dr N Hammond-Browning
Lecturer in law, Southampton University
Dr Shawn Harmon
Reader in law and barrister, University of Edinburgh
Dr Jen Hendry
Lecturer in law, University of Leeds
Dr Emma Hitchings
Lecturer in law, Bristol University
Dr Kirsty Horsey
Senior lecturer in law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Jonathan Ives
Senior lecturer in biomedical ethics and law, University of Bristol
Dr Imogen Jones
Associate professor, University of Leeds
Dr Sarah Keenan
Lecturer in law, Birkbeck Law School
Dr Chloe Kennedy
Lecturer in criminal law, University of Edinburgh
Ms Kirsty Keywood
Senior lecturer in law, University of Manchester
Dr Edward Kirton-Darling
Lecturer in law and solicitor, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Atina Krajewska
Senior lecturer in law, University of Sheffield
Per Laleng
Senior lecturer in law, University of Kent
Dr Sam Lewis
Lecturer in law, University of Leeds
Dr Carly Lightowlers
Academic fellow, University of Leeds
Dr Claire Lougarre
Lecturer in law, University of Southampton
Dr Sorcha MacLeod
Lecturer in law, Free University Berlin
Ms Sorcha Mc Cormack
Research assistant, University of Leeds
Dr Julie McCandless
Assistant professor, London School of Economics
Professor Jean V McHale
Professor in law, University of Bimingham
Dr Lynsey Mitchell
Lecturer in law, University of Strathclyde
Daniel Monk
Reader in law, Birkbeck, University of London
Dr Violeta Moreno
Lecturer in law, Queen Mary University of London
Annette Morris
Reader in law, Cardiff University
Dr Daniel Newman
Lecturer in law, Cardiff Law School
Joanne Pearman
Associate lecturer in law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Craig Purshouse
Lecturer in law, University of Liverpool
Christina Perry
Senior lecturer in law, Queen Mary University of London
Maria Sheppard
Lecturer in law, Queen Mary University of London
Dr Sara Ramshaw
Senior lecturer in law, University of Exeter Law School
Jane Rees
Senior lecturer in law, University of the West of England
Katie Richards
Lecturer in law, Cardiff University
Dr Apolline Roger
Lecturer in law, Sheffield University Law School
Dr Harriet Samuels
Reader in law, Westminster Law School
Dr Anna Sergi
Lecturer in law, University of Essex
Dr Ruth Stirton
Lecturer in healthcare law, University of Sussex
Dania Thomas
Lecturer in law, University of Glasgow
Dr Sharon Thompson
Lecturer in law, Cardiff University
Dr Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis
Lecturer in law, University of Sheffield
Dr Ilke Turkmendag
Lecturer in law, Newcastle Law School
Dr Sorcha Ui Chonnachtaigh
Lecturer in ethics and law, Keele University
Dr Kenneth Veitch
Senior lecturer in law, University of Sussex
Dr A M M Viens
Associate professor, University of Southampton
Dr Sophie Vigneron
Senior lecturer in law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Julie Wallbank
Lecturer in law, University of Leeds
Dr Daniel Wei Liang Wang
Lecturer in law, Queen Mary University of London
Dr J Wier
Senior lecturer, Canterbury Christchurch University
Dr Ania Zbyszewska
Associate professor, University of Warwick School of Law
Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC
Bindmans LLP
Jonathan Austin-Jones
Barrister, University of Kent
Elizabeth Prochaska
Barrister, Matrix Chambers
Mikal Anderson
Solicitor, Kent County Council
Carol Aylott
Solicitor, Kent Employment Solicitors
Shruttee Dutt
Solicitor, Creighton and Partners
Sarah Collins
Solicitor, Unionline Scotland
Katherine Craig
Solicitor
Nick Fairweather
Solicitor, Fairweathers Solicitors LLP
Ana Kalisnik
Solicitor, Zupancic and Mauhler
Russell Levy
Solicitor, Leigh Day
Michael Newman
Legal partner, Leigh Day
Christine Tallon
Legal partner, Leigh Day
Hannah Uglow
Solicitor, University of Kent
Merry Varney
Legal partner, Leigh Day
Sue Willman
Solicitor, Deighton Pierce Glynn
Sheona York
Solicitor, Kent Law Clinic
Benjamin Bishop
Professional accreditation officer, University of Kent
Freya Danby
Para legal, Leigh Day
Jayne Instone
Career development officer, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Samantha Lester
Student success project officer, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Alice Pinches
Para legal, Irwin Mitchell
Niamh Quille
Para legal, Leigh Day
Gus Silva
Company director, University of Middlesex
Laura Wares
Legal assistant, Kent County Council
Lucy Batstone
Student, University of the West of England
Nick Beard
Student, University of Sussex
Elliot Black
Student, University of Southampton
Jessica Brewin
Student, University of Law
Alan Brown
Doctoral researcher, University of Strathclyde
Caroline Browne
Student, University of the West of England
Emily Burke
Student, University of Groningen
Maisie Butler
Graduate
Meghan Campbell
Student, Oxford University
Georgia Cherry
Student, University of Sheffield
Ashima Chopra
Student, Queen Mary University of London
Lilian Clemence
Student, University of Southampton
Emma Crowhurst
Student, University of Law
Miles Cullimore
Student, University of the West of England
Sara Davies
Student, Cardiff University
Chris Dietz
Student, University of Leeds
Kit Fotheringham
Student, Bristol University
Bee Hiang Goh
Law graduate, University of Sheffield
Shannon Green
Student, University of the West of England
Angharad Griffiths
Student, University of the West of England
Xujun Guan
Law graduate, University College London
Barbara Hardy
Student, University of Bristol
Dannielle Hardy
Student, Nottingham Trent University
Madeleine Henson
Student, University of Southampton
Glenys Hunt
Student, University of Liverpool
Sarah Johnson
Student, University of Groningen
Kelsie Dunkley
Student, University of the West of England
Madeleine Laot
Student, University of Sheffield
Elliott Lauder
Student, University of Bristol
Megan Lee
Law graduate,University of Bristol
Yao Lu
Student, University of Sheffield
Hanna Lunnard
Student, University of Groningen
Thomas McManus
Research fellow, Queen Mary University of London
Emma Mews
Student, University of Lincoln
Emma Milne
Student, University of Essex
Elizabeth Morgan
Student, University of Southampton
Tyria Morgan
Student, University of the West of England
Amber Owen
Student, University of the West of England
Alex Louise Pearl
Student, University of Leeds
Fahmida Akhter Privy
Student, University of the West of England
Sannah Nisa Rehman
Student, University of the West of England
Laura Robinson
Law graduate, University of Sheffield
Rebecca Sanders
Student, University of Sheffield
Goksu Sevim
Student, University of Groningen
Kirsten Shellis
Student, University of the West of England
Laura Shurrock
Law graduate, University of Sheffield
D S Nelaka De Silva
Student, University of Law
Jessica Edith Gibbons Smith
Student, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Robyn Smith
Student, University of Sheffield
Victoria Smith
Student, University of Sheffield
Robert Strooper
Student, University of Groningen
Ayobami Thomas
Student, University of Sheffield
Kieran Tye
Student, University of Southampton
Helene Tyrrell
Teaching fellow, Newcastle University
Clowie Wheeler-Ozanne
Student, University of Strathclyde
Katelyn Willmott
Law graduate, Queen Mary University London
Lara Wills
Student, University of Southampton
Travis Wisdom
Student, University of Adelaide

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

A key proposal for abortion law reform | Letters

Anti-abortion report challenges law reform in Northern Ireland

A report by anti-abortion campaigners in Northern Ireland has claimed that 100,000 people were born in the region because the 1967 Abortion Act was never extended to the province.

The Both Lives Matter report published on Wednesday comes as the former justice minister in Northern Ireland confirmed this week that he will resubmit his private member’s bill in the next Stormont assembly calling on the new devolved parliament to legalise abortions in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities where the pregnancies are doomed.

Dawn McAvoy of Both Lives Matter said: “The debate around abortion is in danger of becoming polarised by those only concerned with the unborn child on the one hand and those solely concerned with the rights of the women on the other. The reality is that both lives matter.”

“There are people alive in Northern Ireland today who would not have been born if the 1967 Abortion Act had been introduced here. People we all know and love – spouses, children, friends and family.”

“We estimate that there are 100,000 people alive today, who would not be, had we introduced the 1967 Abortion Act.

The group’s report comes at a time when the battle lines are being redrawn over abortion in Northern Ireland, the only part of the UK where the procedure is banned in almost all circumstances except when there is a direct threat to the mother’s life.

Thousands of Northern Irish women are forced to travel across to England to terminate their pregnancies due to the near-total ban.

David Ford, the former leader of the cross-community Alliance Party, who was justice minister in the regional government before it collapsed on Monday, has vowed to continue to press for abortion reform.

He said that in the next parliament after the scheduled elections on 2 March, there would be another private members bill calling on assembly members to liberalise the near-total ban on abortion.

Ford said: “Should the people of South Antrim re-elect me to the position of their MLA, on my first day back I will go to the Speaker’s office and resubmit my bill, with a view to progressing it through the next assembly term.”

The Both Lives Matter campaign is being backed by the former police ombudsman in Northern Ireland Nuala O’Loan, who said extreme cases of crisis pregnancies were being used to push a pro-abortion agenda.

Lady O’Loan said: “There is an urgent requirement at a time when heart-rending cases are being extensively utilised by those seeking to diminish legal protection for the unborn, to be more focused on recognising and providing for the needs and care of both mother and child. ‘Both Lives Matter’ is an excellent response to that pressing need.”

The group has also won the support of economist Esmond Birnie, a former adviser to ex-first minister and Nobel peace prize winner David Trimble.

Both Lives Matters said it is a new collaborative movement of individuals and organisations seeking to reframe the abortion debate in Northern Ireland.

In 2015 a high court judge in Belfast ruled that Northern Ireland’s almost outright ban on abortion breaches the human rights of women and girls, including rape victims. The ruling is being challenged by the province’s attorney general John Larkin.

At least 1,000 women and girls from Northern Ireland travel to hospitals in Britain for terminations every year.For instance, official figures for 2013 suggest 800 Northern Irish pregnancies were terminated in Britain – although that number is regarded as an underestimate. Among the 800 was that of a 13-year-old who became pregnant through incest.

The only law applying to abortion in Northern Ireland is the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, which contains a life sentence for anyone convicted of carrying out a termination even in cases of rape or incest.

Anti-abortion report challenges law reform in Northern Ireland

NHS crisis: more money must be linked to reform

The biggest crisis facing the NHS is that, no matter how high or low the funding, transformational change fails to happen. It is easy to justify why reform is so slow and patchy currently, but neither did it happen in the years following the NHS Plan in 2000, when the annual real funding increases were among the highest in NHS history.

The same promises were made – risk stratified prevention, involving people in their own care, a digital revolution, a massive expansion of primary care. Waiting lists tumbled, A&E treatment times were slashed and there was huge capital investment, but the underlying shape of the service remained largely unchanged.

That history is one reason why the Treasury is so resistant to injecting more cash. After the NHS England chief executive, Simon Stevens, appeared in front of the Commons public accounts committee this week former permanent secretary Nick Macpherson tweeted: “NHS bottomless pit. Money should be linked to reform.”

Nick Macpherson (@nickmacpherson2)

Simon Stevens a good guy but he should not determine health spending. NHS bottomless pit. Money should be linked to reform. #soundmoney

January 11, 2017

In other parts of the public sector, the current “burning platform” of sustained and substantial real-term funding cuts has driven major restructuring. Councils have been merging management teams and back-office systems, selling buildings and consolidating staff in fewer centres and engaging with the public online rather than face-to-face. This is been delivered by facing up to tough decisions and planning ahead, knowing that they have to break even each year.

But there is a difference between tight control of public spending and setting the NHS up to fail. Undermining prevention by cutting public health budgets, driving people to A&E through inadequate primary care, and stopping hospital patients returning home by eating away at real-term social services spending for seven years is a triple assault on the NHS that is overwhelming the system. Add in the efficiencies – cuts – being driven through the payment system and the pressures become intolerable.

Our health spending as a proportion of our national wealth has always been low. According to the Health Foundation, we would need to increase our spending as a proportion of GDP by around 10% to catch up with France and Germany. Health spending should be seen as an investment. Mental health services in particular have a direct economic benefit.

More cash is needed to break the vicious circle. The vortex of acute sector deficits is sucking in funds from the rest of the system, undermining precisely the developments that can help to avoid emergency admissions. It has swallowed up virtually all the money intended for service transformation. Beyond this, cuts to local government funding for social care and public health need to be reversed.

Leaving aside the politics of the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, trying to wriggle off the four-hour A&E target by applying it only to the most serious cases, it is the right move for the health service. When the entire system is under such pressure there is no sense in prioritising rapid treatment of minor ailments.

But Nick Macpherson is right. More money has to be linked to reform. Numerous hospitals are still failing on basics such as effective management of patient flows through the hospital, driving efficiencies in A&E and on wards, managing their estates and driving down the cost of back-office systems – including by outsourcing.

Too few managers and clinicians have the skills to design and implement improvements to care pathways. Simple ideas that have been around for years such as social workers stationed in A&E to divert older people from hospital admissions are still under-exploited.

The NHS and the rest of the health and care system desperately needs more cash, but this cannot be swallowed up in funding business as usual. Firm commitments need to be made and kept across the hospital sector to ensure organisations are as lean and efficient as possible. That is the only way to ensure the endlessly discussed investments in primary, community and mental health care are finally delivered.

Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to read more pieces like this. And follow us on Twitter (@GdnHealthcare) to keep up with the latest healthcare news and views.

NHS crisis: more money must be linked to reform

The NHS is loved and productive, so why the obsession with reform? | Will Hutton

At University School Hospital, London, in the modest hours of each and every morning, a nurse quietly checks the stools of individuals reeling from the side-results of their chemotherapy remedy for leukaemia. It is an unlovely but essential task. See or suspect anything untoward and instantly the technique kicks into action. Indicators of a kidney or liver malfunction want to be caught early these are individuals whose biochemistry has been so wrecked by chemotherapy that their bodies cannot right the shutdown of a crucial physique organ. An early warning is an uncommon stool. Death is a true likelihood.

Across the hospital – and in each hospital in the nation – anything comparable is going on. More than the last six months, I’ve acquired to know the interior workings of UCH’s leukaemia wards far better than I, or any reader, would ever want. You just offer thanks that there is such a technique on hand for the crisis my family and other individuals are going by way of. And that the leukaemia wards are embedded in a basic hospital with such depth of knowledge and assortment of resource. What ever cruel side-results that emerge, there are authorities and teams on hand to get charge as the requirements come up. It is integrated 21st-century healthcare. It saves lives.

It is also value-driven, as is the case with all excellent organisations. Curing leukaemia often culminates in a bone marrow transplant, with the molecular structure of the donor’s bone marrow very carefully matched with that of the recipient. Only healthful new bone marrow will avert the cancer from reappearing. But that requirements donors. The Anthony Nolan Believe in has a lot more than half-a-million volunteers who give their bone marrow and blood for totally free the bigger the pool, the far better the chance of a match, and as a result of survival. They are unsung heroes and heroines, the very best of humanity.

These donors are animated by the very same worth technique as the NHS. The nurses who inspect stools and the consultants who mastermind the cocktail of medication are united by the drive to remedy, to give well being and lifestyle. They are givers and sharers. They know humanity demands solidarity, empathy and hunting out for every other – or else, who are you?

Of course they are imperfect and often make blunders. The sums have to add up, as they do in any organisation, but they include up to serve this larger goal. You give your bone marrow for free of charge to a service that offers well being for free, funded by generally developed sources. Life-threatening disease is a lottery. Just before this existential reality we stand together. Revenue maximisation can’t be the value method at the heart of our healthcare technique.

This is a way of contemplating foreign to the army of centre-correct commentators, economists and politicians who solemnly intone by the day that the only reply to the NHS’s alleged failings is more marketplace, much more competition and a lot more incentives.

Last week, Reform, David Cameron’s favourite thinktank, published Going with Modify by Paul Corrigan and Mike Parish, a traditional of the genre. The NHS, they claim, is in a twin crisis of affordability and uneven treatment. It demands to open itself up to dynamic corporate entrants who will lead required structural re-ordering, as has occurred in large street retailing. Unfortunately, the NHS “is especially hostile to competitors”. Experts, unionised staff and meddlesome politicians want to stand aside and enable the technique to turn out to be rational, transaction-oriented and incentivised. Only therefore will it survive.

Corrigan and Parish write in ignorance of global trends, developments in economics and, over all, the centrality of values. Rather than struggling from a twin crisis that requirements their silly nostrums, the NHS is the most affordable method in the globe generating the greatest health outcomes. The New York-based mostly Commonwealth Fund ranks eleven superior countries’ well being methods for price and health outcomes. Britain spends $ 3,404 (£2,000) per head on wellness compared with the $ 8,508 (£5,001) by the open-to-new-entrants US system, with the other nine nations in in between.

But on effectiveness, safety, patient centredness, co-ordination, high quality and accessibility, Britain scores number a single. It an uncomfortable truth that trumps Corrigan and Parish’s argument. The NHS may have issues, but it is not in crisis. It faces an ageing population and far more expensive remedies, but from the best beginning level.

If there is a economic squeeze looming, it won’t be simply because of the NHS’s outstanding performance. Rather, it is simply because the government has determined, for no cause but ideological zeal, that Britain need to shrink standard public investing to the same proportions of GDP as we had in 1948.

Nonetheless, as the country grows richer, we will want to spend much more proportionally on our superbly value-powerful and effective healthcare method, but that is prohibited because, as a tax-funded system, that would imply larger taxation, which obstructs “wealth generation”. Even if accurate, it supposes that the definition of wealth must not incorporate tax-funded well being and wellbeing as portion of what we want from our civilisation.

Nor are markets really the catch-all, unalloyed virtue Corrigan and Parish suppose. The hyper-transactional monetary technique turns out to be highly unstable, imposing huge systemic fees worse, its values, as Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, argued in a current speech, in which the quest for the following bonus turns into the overriding preoccupation, are undermining the trust and integrity on which capitalism depends.

The shareholder worth revolution has produced a crisis in corporate values and the amoral, ownerless corporation mindlessly cutting costs – the quite insurgents Corrigan and Parish want to welcome. Yes, the NHS is rightly suspicious. It tries to run an integrated system vital for remedy and health, but ownerless organizations cherry selecting lush contracts, with executives’ pay out tied to share value performance, will drive up fees, generating healthcare less powerful, the technique more unstable and induce a crisis over values.

Previously, the NHS is fragmented into far more than 500 statutory organisations. It does need far more massive hospital “hubs” and fewer smaller hospitals, but that must not be the excuse for far more brainless wrecking of what remains a phenomenal organisation – cheap, generally higher high quality and value-driven, as you uncover when you are inside it.

Any person could discover themselves stricken with leukaemia, even overall health secretaries and report writers. Their chance of a effective remedy will depend on the rest of us resisting the “reforms” they so ardently advocate. We can very own and we can pay out for a wonderful overall health program. It just will take the collective will.

The NHS is loved and productive, so why the obsession with reform? | Will Hutton

Reform the NHS sacred cow

The verdict on the NHS of Robert Francis QC, the chairman of the inquiry into the Mid-Staffs scandal, is frightening. “If we ran our airline industry on the same basis,” he told The Telegraph, “planes would be falling out of the sky all the time.” Indeed, for the families of some patients, this grim metaphor is entirely appropriate. The nightmare of Mid-Staffs saw hundreds more patients die than would normally be expected, in the context of appalling failings of care.

Just as shocking, however, has been the relative lack of personal responsibility taken. One senior nurse was struck off, but otherwise penalties were limited to a handful of junior nurses accused of, for instance, falsifying Accident and Emergency discharge times or physically and verbally abusing a dementia patient. Only one doctor working at the trust at the time has been struck off – for fraud. The more senior members of the profession have emerged largely unscathed.

As we have long argued, whistleblowers need to be properly protected for the sake of transparency and safety. But there also needs to be proper punishment for those who break the rules – as part of wider reform of the way that large parts of the NHS are managed, with the goal of putting the needs of patients first. As Mr Francis said: “We’ve just got to change the attitude that because it’s provided by the state, it’s all right for a number of people to be treated badly.”

He is absolutely right. If such failures occurred in any other walk of life – especially in the private sector – we could reasonably expect heads to roll and dramatic reforms to follow. The NHS, however, has been protected by its status as a sacred cow. Mid-Staffs should have been a wake-up call; instead, too much of the health service has carried on just as before.

Reform the NHS sacred cow

Leading Scientists Get in touch with For Reform Of "Unsustainable" Biomedical Investigation Enterprise

In the recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), four distinguished scientists make an urgent situation for reforming how biomedical investigation is funded and carried out in the United States.

The authors are Bruce Alberts of the University of California at San Francisco, Marc Kirschner of Harvard, Shirley Tilghman of Princeton, and Harold Varmus, the director of the National Cancer Institute.

Although biomedicine has flourished in the U.S. given that the end of Globe War II, the authors argue than its present trajectory is unsustainable. Beginning in the 1990s and worsening soon after 2003, when the NIH price range doubled, there has been an growing mismatch amongst the demand for analysis dollars and the supply.  Above the previous decade, as a outcome of the Great Economic downturn and the sequestration, growth has stalled and even reversed.

NIH emblem (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The root of the difficulty, according to the authors, is the longstanding, unquestioned assumption that the biomedical enterprise would continue to broaden indefinitely.  This “Malthusian” mindset has led to the coaching of a lot of a lot more scientists than can locate jobs in academia, government, or the personal sector.  Graduate students and postdoctoral fellows do most of the hands-on research in academic institutions, and their ranks have swelled to allow scientists to increase their research productivity.  This development was manufactured achievable by supporting postdocs on analysis grants and having to pay them significantly less than everlasting workers scientists are paid.  There are currently 40,000 postdoctoral fellows in the biomedical technique.

But the end result is that the present system is, as the authors create, “in perpetual disequilibrium, due to the fact it will inevitably create an ever-escalating provide of scientists vying for a finite set of study resources and employment opportunities.”

The mismatch in between the demand for resources and their availability has fostered what the authors call a “culture of hyper-competitiveness,” which has baleful results.  Scientists feel stress to publish in a tiny amount of high-profile journals and, in order to get published, to overstate the significance of their perform.  As end result, an growing proportion of published benefits can’t be replicated.  One more longstanding hallmark of the existing system is that a huge portion of scientists’ time is taken up with grant-creating rather than carrying out inventive work.  The competition for a shrinking pool of bucks encourages proposing projects that are very likely to generate guaranteed outcomes rather than pursuing novel ideas, whose end result is inherently much less predictable.

The recent technique has designed what the authors contact “perverse incentives” in study funding.  Universities have responded to the availability of government research money by employing far more faculty as a implies of obtaining far more overhead.  It has also led to the expansion of study services.  This dependence on government monies has worked to the detriment of faculty who have institutional help.

The authors create that, “From the early 1990s, every labor economist who has studied the pipeline for the biomedical workforce has proclaimed it to be broken.”  Even so, the biomedical local community has been slow to encounter this predicament, in part simply because established scientists, these who have the most influence, have benefited from it, and also simply because program has been enormously effective in making fantastic science.

But the authors argue that failure to confront the actuality jeopardizes future progress and the public’s faith in the analysis enterprise.

To handle the dilemma, they supply a number of recommendations:

• Longer-term preparing to develop more predictable and stable budgets


• Progressively decreasing the amount of Ph.D.s in the biomedical sciences by introducing a much more selective approach for funding graduate students


• Rising the ratio of employees scientists to trainees


• Bettering the peer evaluation technique to foster the most imaginative proposals


• Diversifying graduate education in biomedicine to make students conscious of other regions in which they could use their scientific background, such as policy, communications, and so on.

These modifications will consequence in a leaner and more rational program that favors quality more than quantity.  They will also give far more secure assistance and a lot more area for advancement for outstanding researchers.

Reforming the method to favor creativity and standard investigation that stands the ideal opportunity of yielding crucial clinical applications will hopefully support the US keep what the authors refer to as the Golden Age of biomedicine.

Geoffrey Kabat is a cancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein School of Medication and a contributing editor at STATS (Statistical Assessment Support) at George Mason University.   He is the author of Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Every day Daily life and the Science of Epidemiology.

Stick to Geoffrey on Twitter.

Leading Scientists Get in touch with For Reform Of "Unsustainable" Biomedical Investigation Enterprise

Reform NHS instruction technique to finish "Black Wednesday" death rate spike, says report

Last yr he introduced a week’s shadowing the place newly competent physicians worked alongside much more senior ones for a week just before they start off function in August.

He informed The Telegraph: “This makes intuitive sense. Obtaining a person all around more senior is important since now only do they know much more healthcare stuff than you, they know how the hospital and personnel perform.

“Some of the troubles that have occurred with new trainees has been that they merely never know how to get factors carried out and who to go for support.

“This will make August safer for individuals.”

Dr Simon Newell co-author of the paper and chairman of the Academy Staggered Trainee Changeover Functioning group explained: “This has been an critical piece of work which has been driven by considerations about patient security.

“Proof suggests that sufferers die because of the existing arrangements.

“I think our proposals, which had been the topic of considerable debate and consultation, will improve top quality of care and patient security, and it is as a result essential that this perform, even though it must form component of the Shape of Coaching proposals, does not get misplaced within its wider agenda.”

Reform NHS instruction technique to finish "Black Wednesday" death rate spike, says report

Five ways to fund the NHS that Reform may well like to think about

Invest in more nuns

Throughout Europe religious orders have supplied the fantastic majority of care to people as well poor or sick to be capable to pay for health-related interest. They’ve dealt with every single part of well being care, from foundling hospitals for abandoned babies, to leprosariums for the shunned and contagious. In reality, Hildegard of Bingen, one particular of the most renowned healers of the medieval time period and author of books on natural history and medicine, was a nun. Nuns are notoriously low-cost labour, and very best of all hospitals can be run on a mixed funding basis with contributions from rich nearby benefactors, the church, and the state.

Destroy the Protestant Perform Ethic/Smash Capitalism

(I am not confident this revolutionary strategy will be common with the Reform group’s (all male) advisory board, but it could just perform…)

From the seventeenth till the early nineteenth century Britain’s wellness and welfare technique ran via a form of local taxation, the Elizabethan Poor Law, topped up with charitable donations to regional institutions this kind of as voluntary hospitals. This system apparently stopped working in the early nineteenth century, in part since of the industrial revolution and urbanisation, which meant that poorer people weren’t evenly spread out in excess of the country, but clustered close to cities and internet sites of employment. This led to the New Bad Law and the Workhouse technique, which I’ve written about prior to. Sociologists have been arguing for decades about the other causes attitudes to poverty altered. One particular reply is supplied by Max Weber’s theory of the ‘Protestant Operate Ethic’. This is a difficult thought, but place basically it involves the suggestion that there was a shift in numerous countries, such as England, in our comprehending of what created an individual a very good person. As an alternative of ‘good works’ and charity being the mark of true holiness, private accomplishment and even wealth grew to become important to distinguish in between worthy and worthless individuals, due to the fact these outward indicators have been thought to be proof of difficult perform and individual energy.

This shift is particularly essential in an industrialised and capitalist society the place there is a degree of social mobility which hadn’t been so common in earlier generations: we may commence asking why it is that some individuals obtain upward social mobility and other folks really don’t. This leads us to start off questioning where our tax or charity payments are going, and who is benefiting, and at some point to a notion of ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ charity cases. This is notably problematic in healthcare, since it is straightforward to point to specific individuals and judge that simply because they’ve not exercised enough, or they smoke or drink also considerably you contemplate them unworthy and don’t want to contribute to their health care. Since poverty tends to predispose men and women to unhealthy routines, this can make tax- or charity-funded overall health care for all really challenging to sustain. Logically, then, if we went back to the pre-industrial frame of mind that offering cash to other folks was a very good thing in and of itself we’d discover it easier to fund the NHS, particularly its public and preventive health programmes in areas of life style reform.

Promote Bodies

Not like Burke and Hare, but like the (in)well-known publish-Revolutionary French hospitals. One particular of the alterations in medication that happened at the starting of the nineteenth century was the closer association between health-related training and hospitals a stint operating in a hospital became obligatory for any person wanting to be licensed as a doctor in several European nations.

Submit-revolutionary France had a particular problem with its hospitals since the ethics of the revolution denounced each religious and royal patronage, and this alongside the large reduction in wealthy French folks due to the Terror meant that hospitals genuinely required state funding to survive. In return for this totally free treatment method, however, inpatients of the French hospitals for the bad were essential to participate in medical education – acting as educating topics for healthcare lecturers, practice bodies for trainee surgeons, guinea pigs in the very first drug effectiveness scientific studies, and (frequently) as autopsy specimens for pathology lessons.

Student and trainee medical doctors and clinical trial schemes are presently fixtures in the NHS, but probably we must consider about the other valuable items bodies make and we can sell, this kind of as blood, or huge data. (Oh, wait…)

Outpatients waiting hall in the Wonderful Northern Central Hospital, August 1912. This hospital was largely funded by railway organizations and numerous individuals would have been company staff. Courtesy of the Wellcome Library, London.

Help the Co-operative

Tons of banking institutions have had large bailouts to help them survive so possibly Reform should encourage assistance of one particular of the oldest self-support healthcare-associated organisations in Britain. The Victorian poor often had to locate a sponsor before they could get entry to a hospital or other support. By donating to a healthcare supplier, the wealthy (and institutions like churches and companies) were offered the correct to suggest a specified number of people per yr, which permitted them to right make a decision who was deserving, and who was not. One way to bypass this method was to type a cooperative society a set-up in which poorer individuals could make tiny, typical donations to a central pot of money which could be employed when they essential it (like an insurance coverage technique), or which was donated to a hospital to acquire the proper to therapy for any members in need (or, without a doubt, employed to fund a funeral).

By the finish of the nineteenth century doing work-class people may well be members of several organisations like nearby funeral co-operatives, voluntary societies, mutual financial savings organisations and so on, offering entry not just to health care, but to unemployment help, care in previous age and schooling. Some hospitals tapped into this industry by providing membership schemes directly to the bad, or operating Hospital Saturday and Sunday schemes.

Elect a Liberal Government

The Liberal Government of 1906-1914 is well-known for bringing in a series of welfare reforms, from totally free college meals to pensions. They also launched a new type of taxation-primarily based payment for healthcare providers with the 1911 Nationwide Insurance Act. Under this act the lowest paid members of the workforce contributed a fixed volume of 4d a week, employers paid 3d, and then the standard revenue tax payer extra one more 2d a week, so that total 9d a week was place into a cost savings pot. This paid for some sickness and unemployment benefit, and also access to fundamental principal care. (Some money was also earmarked for medical study, at very first just into tuberculosis but later into other conditions the direct result was the formation of the forerunner of the Health-related Analysis Council in 1913).

The downside of this type of funding was that it only aided working individuals, as the lengthy term unemployed, wives, elderly relatives, kids and other dependents had been excluded the sustainable solution to this dilemma came 37 years later on when a universally levied kind of taxation was brought in – progressive, as it was primarily based on income – to fund access to healthcare for all. It was called the NHS.

Vanessa tweets @hps_vanessa and vaguely wonders if she shouldn’t have waited a handful of hrs and posted this on April 1st…

Five ways to fund the NHS that Reform may well like to think about

NHS reform: Special measures | Editorial

The question of how to make change happen to a National Health Service that is beloved to the last bedpan has been preoccupying health secretaries for at least 50 years. As each one has to find out for themselves, change in healthcare is extraordinarily complex, not least because no one quite knows what it ought to look like. Now it is Jeremy Hunt’s turn.

The regime that will prevail if the care bill goes through the Commons unchanged is one more botched effort to deal with the unintended consequences of a crisis that originates in failure. Clause 119, which deals with hospital closures, means that good hospitals that are functioning well could have their best services asset-stripped in order to prop up a neighbouring trust facing bankruptcy. It could end up shaping the way healthcare is provided without paying proper attention to the wider needs of the community that it is supposed to serve. It is a failure regime that will almost certainly make failure more likely.

Clause 119 is a rapid rethink after a court ruled that the trust special administrator – in effect, the receiver – of the South London healthcare NHS trust couldn’t force neighbouring Lewisham hospital to run down some services to make the South London trust more financially viable. What is happening in South London now will be coming soon to a dozen or more of the scores of hospital trusts across England that – after the fierce budget squeeze – are teetering on the edge of collapse. Reconfiguration of the health service is undoubtedly needed. But it must not happen like this, driven by too many of the wrong considerations – narrow questions of short-term finance – and not enough of the right ones – the most efficient way of delivering the best, most affordable care, from district nurses to specialised cancer units, to everyone in the area.

Veterans of attempts at health reform are usually convinced that in the end there has to be some kind of top-down command and control system. Otherwise local interests obstruct every change. All politicians remember Kidderminster 2001 – when Dr Richard Taylor snatched a safe Labour seat with a campaign in defence of his hospital’s A&E unit – and shudder. No secretary of state would sacrifice the power to intervene for political reasons in order to pursue the greater good, at least not if they valued their job. If this seems unduly cynical, look back only a few weeks to the case of Mid Staffordshire NHS trust, where the trust special administrator and the health regulator, Monitor, had painstakingly agreed a programme of managed decline, which involved among other measures losing maternity services to the larger University Hospital of North Staffordshire. Hours before the recommendations were to be announced, David Cameron told the Commons he thought mid-Staffs needed its maternity unit. The report was sent back for reconsideration. Jeremy Hunt had to rewrite his statement to MPs.

Mr Hunt could reasonably warn that there is now real concern that delays in reconfiguration are leaving some services in some hospitals in protracted death throes. That means – local campaigners should remember – that some will be less safe than they could be. But that does not justify forcing through change on the back of a rushed and narrowly focused process. What is so alarming is that in the process of driving through changes so big they can be seen from space, the mechanism for making primary care the driver of reconfiguration got swallowed up in second thoughts – and now there’s no mechanism to provide an evidence-driven holistic assessment of service need that ordinary people can believe in.

Sweeping up all the powers of reconfiguration into the office of secretary of state and his appointees will make that worse. That’s likely to be the first big headache for the highly rated if controversial Simon Stevens who takes over NHS England next month. Early in his career, he commissioned NHS services for Brighton. Useful expertise for the man who has to piece together the parts that have fallen off the NHS aeroplane and get it airworthy again.

NHS reform: Special measures | Editorial

NHS reform: Unique measures | Editorial

The query of how to make adjust take place to a Nationwide Overall health Service that is beloved to the final bedpan has been preoccupying well being secretaries for at least 50 years. As each and every 1 has to uncover out for themselves, adjust in healthcare is extraordinarily complex, not least simply because no one particular very understands what it ought to look like. Now it is Jeremy Hunt’s turn.

The regime that will prevail if the care bill goes by means of the Commons unchanged is one far more botched effort to deal with the unintended consequences of a crisis that originates in failure. Clause 119, which offers with hospital closures, means that good hospitals that are working effectively could have their very best companies asset-stripped in buy to prop up a neighbouring trust dealing with bankruptcy. It could finish up shaping the way healthcare is offered without paying correct focus to the wider demands of the local community that it is supposed to serve. It is a failure regime that will almost undoubtedly make failure more very likely.

Clause 119 is a speedy rethink following a court ruled that the trust special administrator – in impact, the receiver – of the South London healthcare NHS trust could not force neighbouring Lewisham hospital to run down some services to make the South London believe in more financially viable. What is occurring in South London now will be coming soon to a dozen or a lot more of the scores of hospital trusts across England that – after the fierce budget squeeze – are teetering on the edge of collapse. Reconfiguration of the overall health services is undoubtedly essential. But it must not happen like this, driven by too several of the wrong considerations – narrow queries of brief-term finance – and not ample of the proper ones – the most effective way of delivering the very best, most inexpensive care, from district nurses to specialised cancer units, to everyone in the location.

Veterans of attempts at health reform are typically convinced that in the end there has to be some type of top-down command and handle system. Otherwise local interests obstruct each change. All politicians bear in mind Kidderminster 2001 – when Dr Richard Taylor snatched a secure Labour seat with a campaign in defence of his hospital’s A&ampE unit – and shudder. No secretary of state would sacrifice the electrical power to intervene for political factors in purchase to pursue the higher very good, at least not if they valued their task. If this seems unduly cynical, appear back only a number of weeks to the case of Mid Staffordshire NHS believe in, where the trust particular administrator and the wellness regulator, Monitor, had painstakingly agreed a programme of managed decline, which involved amongst other measures losing maternity solutions to the more substantial University Hospital of North Staffordshire. Hours just before the recommendations had been to be announced, David Cameron informed the Commons he believed mid-Staffs essential its maternity unit. The report was sent back for reconsideration. Jeremy Hunt had to rewrite his statement to MPs.

Mr Hunt could fairly warn that there is now genuine concern that delays in reconfiguration are leaving some companies in some hospitals in protracted death throes. That means – neighborhood campaigners ought to remember – that some will be less protected than they could be. But that does not justify forcing by way of change on the back of a rushed and narrowly centered method. What is so alarming is that in the procedure of driving by means of adjustments so large they can be noticed from room, the mechanism for producing principal care the driver of reconfiguration received swallowed up in 2nd ideas – and now there is no mechanism to provide an proof-driven holistic assessment of service want that ordinary people can think in.

Sweeping up all the powers of reconfiguration into the workplace of secretary of state and his appointees will make that worse. That is very likely to be the very first large headache for the highly rated if controversial Simon Stevens who takes above NHS England following month. Early in his profession, he commissioned NHS providers for Brighton. Valuable experience for the guy who has to piece collectively the elements that have fallen off the NHS aeroplane and get it airworthy yet again.

NHS reform: Unique measures | Editorial

How reform of the tendering process will save the NHS hundreds of thousands

Now is the time to get decisive and urgent action to streamline the aggressive tendering procedure and conserve income, says Sue Ward. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

A flurry of freedom of data (FoI) requests from government departments requesting data about investing on NHS competitive tendering signals the start off of political parties gearing up for their election campaigns.

Whilst I am not a massive fan of FoI due to the extra burden they spot on stretched assets, I welcome this sudden curiosity in a hugely expensive workout that is draining considerably-needed frontline sources at a time when we are all facing tremendous monetary problems to make unprecedented cost savings.

Our response to these FoIs tends to make for salutary studying without a doubt: far more than £1m a year is being invested on the competitive tendering approach. Assuming that we are not special, the all round price to NHS providers is fairly basically eye watering – a scandalous waste of public cash.

Above the many years there has been significantly talk about bettering the bid procedure although retaining robust governance and intelligent commissioning. Nevertheless, speak has not translated into modify and costs carry on to rise year on 12 months. Now should absolutely be the time to consider decisive and urgent action to streamline the procedure and save the NHS millions of pounds.

Even at the pre-qualification stage, there is no normal format that means that every tender requires a new response. Some concerns might be similar but either have a slightly different angle or need information that has not been requested ahead of or is required in a various format. There is limited opportunity to use earlier responses to streamline the method and reduce the value of responding to every single individually.

There are occasions when, possessing invested massive amounts of sources, the tendering approach is stopped or suspended for different motives. On other occasions, the approach has been stopped and then restarted with a somewhat distinct tendering necessity so bidders have to invest equivalent assets yet again if they want to keep in the operating.

This is not just a burden on providers: commissioners are also investing assets in coming up with new tender documentation and rules of procurement – not to mention the substantial quantity of time and cash in administering the approach itself. Numerous of these functions are outsourced, which can only include to the expense. Clinical commissioning groups have not learned the lessons of the previous. If anything, the expectations placed on bidders have elevated.

We need a wholesale review of this process so that the NHS can lead the area in wise, productive procurement that guarantees the best bidder is chosen although conserving income at the front line. We currently have a model that gives some possible to accomplish this in the “any experienced supplier” approach. Its core characteristics are:

• On the internet submissions: reducing the costly and environmentally unfriendly needs of paper submissions
• Standardised queries: this implies earlier responses on concerns this kind of as organisational form, clinical governance, good quality, fiscal management, patient engagement and suggestions can just be re-utilised
• Support certain questions: this targets sources to offering info about how the distinct service becoming commissioned would be delivered
• Regional questions: these enable commissioners to ask one or two added, particular inquiries to deal with regional problems and demographics

We could go even more and make better use of Monitor’s licensing regime and the Care Quality Commission’s inspection processes. Each are created to offer assurance close to viability and the good quality of care, supplying commissioners with assurance and reducing the requirements of individual procurement exercise routines.

Through the use of engineering, we could build a centralised procurement hub where organisations respond to a set of core queries which can be accessed by commissioners to supplement the a lot more local and distinct details required for individual bids – all of which would be managed on the internet. Info could be updated as required and would reduce the massive quantity of assets required to deal with the method for the two companies and commissioners alike.

I would enjoy to see a person rise to the challenge of reviewing the procurement process as a political priority, so we can target our increasingly stretched assets to where they are most needed –at the front line, on high good quality services for sufferers.

Sue Ward is head of organization development and market at Central and North West London NHS basis trust

This article is published by Guardian Expert. Join the Healthcare Specialists Network to acquire normal emails and unique delivers

How reform of the tendering process will save the NHS hundreds of thousands

New Republican Prepare For Healthcare Reform Is "Hail Mary" Tax

Undoubtedly a single the bigger healthcare stories this week was the unveiling of a new program by three Republicans to “repeal and replace” Obamacare. As the President’s signature legislation actually takes hold, the actuality and mechanics of any sort of “repeal” are quickly fading into oblivion, but that doesn’t cease the use of the phrase and the acceptance of the idea.

Even though a lot of by no means gave the prospect of an actual repeal any severe thought, the phrase is bold and well-liked as a way to register strong disapproval of the present legislation. It’s a little like throwing the red challenge flag in football – or content articles of impeachment at a politician. It’s dramatic and sounds forceful. As straightforward as it’s been to embrace the “repeal” side, up till now there has been tiny to present for the companion “replace” side.

Unveiled on Monday, this new program does open with the familiar repeal refrain – but is also substantive on components made to actually change Obamacare (eight page PDF right here). Timing in D.C. currently being what it is – it is tough to see this as anything at all but a clear hard work to deflect interest away from the President’s State of the Union tackle on Tuesday.

As expected, plenty of coverage in numerous distinct instructions for this new plan which was dubbed the Patient CARE Act (PCA). Some have already elected to rename it so as not to be confused with the official title for Obamacare – the Patient Protection and Reasonably priced Care Act (PPACA). One rapid summary from Ezekiel J. Emanuel (NYT paywall right here) framed the key differences to Obamacare this way:

one) “Pre-current conditions would be rolled back” [loosely based mostly on any lapse in health coverage]

2) Shrink Medicaid expansion by providing states a fixed amount per enrollee

3) Include a new revenue tax on employees for at least 35% of their employer-sponsored overall health insurance coverage

This final one is the actual shock-and-awe bombshell – and one particular that Forbes colleague Matthew Herper captured succinctly with his headline: The Proposed Republican Replacement For ObamaCare Is A Huge Tax Hike (right here).

It is still early in the trajectory (either sink or swim) for this new “PCA,” but 1 thing it does highlight is how we might have reached a sort of healthcare cost saturation. There are simply no legislative gimmicks, games or alternatives around the final and ultimate wallet – all of us as consumers. For some die-difficult GOP faithful, this alone is an historic occasion – a sizable and transparent tax on operating Americans.

There were other tips as nicely, but some were hard to see as remotely viable technically or remotely profitable with crucial swing voters. Two of these have been:

“However, under our program, each American will be ready to access a health prepare, but no American is forced to have health insurance coverage they do not want. So, if an individual did not like the first default program chosen for them, they would be capable to switch plans, or affirmatively opt-out of coverage altogether.”

Welcome back junk wellness strategies. With no minimal or Vital Well being Rewards, it is back to the gamification of healthcare programs, options and costs. It just defies any actuarial science or logic for men and women to be in a position to choose and pick a wellness prepare “that very best meets their individual wellness care requirements.” 

The 2nd was targeted straight at non-Americans.

“Individuals with annual income over 300 percent FPL would not be eligible for a credit, and only American citizens would be eligible for a credit score.”

That does not imply that non-Americans cannot purchase overall health coverage, but that they wouldn’t qualify for any subsidy if their income was beneath 300% of FPL.

Yet another GOP scorching button situation was also proposed – medical malpractice reform. As usually, it is proposed as significantly necessary to curtail “junk lawsuits and defensive medication.” Sadly, the research referenced in assistance of this concept was from 2007. Much more current research suggest that both health care malpractice claims and insurance coverage fees over the last 6 many years in specific are declining. This headline from October of final 12 months is a good instance of more latest proof against any dire want.

Malpractice Premiums Drop For 6th Straight Yr – Rober Lowes, Medscape Multispecialties – October ten, 2013 (right here)

This quote from that write-up helped to refute not only the age of the information, but the require altogether.

“It can make sense that premiums are going down since malpractice litigation is going down,” stated Taylor Lincoln, a analysis director for the buyer watchdog Public Citizen, in an interview with Medscape Medical Information. Lincoln’s organization announced in August that the quantity of malpractice payments on behalf of physicians as reported to the National Practitioner Information Bank fell for the ninth consecutive 12 months in 2012. Public Citizen maintains that malpractice litigation can’t be blamed for runaway healthcare charges.”

A Republican sponsored tax on operating Americans. I know it’s winter – and unseasonably cold in a lot of parts of the country – but did hell just freeze above? Clearly we’re running out of techniques to filter, stratify and categorize coverage. Possibly this will help to accelerate the core dilemma – and my favourite subject for 2014 – healthcare value.

New Republican Prepare For Healthcare Reform Is "Hail Mary" Tax

South African pharma firms accused of arranging to delay patents law reform

Patents on new medicines may possibly be bypassed in South Africa if adjustments to intellectual home law go ahead. Photograph: Krista Kennell/ZUMA/Corbis

Drug firms in South Africa have been accused of preparing a covert, properly-funded campaign to delay the introduction of laws that threaten their earnings. Leaked paperwork demonstrate that pharmaceutical firms planned a $ 450,000 campaign, involving a high-profile consultancy primarily based in Washington, DC, against modifications to intellectual house laws that would allow their patents on new medicines to be bypassed in the interests of public health. This would permit the manufacture of less costly copies of their medicines.

Campaigners accused the global drug giants of trying to derail existence-saving legislation. The trade entire body IPASA (Modern Pharmaceutical Industry Association South Africa), which was coordinating the campaign, explained on Thursday the programs have been no longer going ahead – though it was legitimate for drug organizations to advertise their views in this way.

One particular of the leaked paperwork is an e-mail dated 10 January from a member of IPASA’s executive to representatives of most of the large-name drug businesses operating in South Africa. As agreed in December, it says, “we have moved ahead in identifying a large-calibre consultancy group to work with us”, naming Washington-based mostly Public Affairs Engagement (PAE).

The second document is the proposed PAE approach, involving the creation of an alliance of businesspeople and academics, the placement of prominent editorials in newspapers, and a bid to “distract” access to medicine campaigners “from their personal aggressive campaign”.

The document later names Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and the Therapy Action Campaign (TAC), calling them a “coalition that was formed to pressure the government into making [the draft IP policy] in the initial location”.

The stakes are high, says the document. “South Africa is now ground zero for the debate on the value of robust IP protection. If the battle is misplaced right here, the results will resonate. Clearly MSF and related NGOs understand that … With no a vigorous campaign, opponents of strong IP will prevail – not just in South Africa but eventually in much of the rest of the developing world.”

Campaigners mentioned they had been shocked. “What is surprising to us is that it is done so subversively,” stated Julia Hill of MSF. “We have really made an effort to be really transparent. It is disappointing that this is currently being carried out in secret and that this kind of an extraordinary volume of funds is getting spent to interfere with the democratic method.”

Lotti Rutter, a senior researcher at TAC, stated: “We have received substantial concerns in excess of what seems to be fairly a covert and well-funded atempt from foreign sector to delay an essential law reform method happening here in South Africa.”

Val Beaumont of IPASA said the discussions had taken spot but the PAE proposal had not been accepted. “It is a really, quite essential situation to us and it will be to any of the knowledge-primarily based organisations,” she stated. “There was a large concern that it would be rushed.” It was Ok for an organisation to have a PR company to support place across its views, she said.

South African pharma firms accused of arranging to delay patents law reform

Healthcare Reform Excellent For Companies?

Healthcare reform truly may possibly be excellent for business, at least for healthcare suppliers.

The Massachusetts State-house in Boston, Massachusetts (Photograph credit score: Wikipedia)

The Massachusetts Overall health Policy Commission launched its 2013 yearly report and identified that the nation’s pioneer in healthcare reform has the highest healthcare expenditures per capita in the United States.

The “2013 Value Trends Report” released this week by the commission contains a myriad of flaws, the largest currently being that data comes from various many years (such as using numbers from as far back as 2009), and it is woefully lacking at identifying root leads to for the increased paying. Also, a lot of the methodology is unexplained, reserved for technical appendices that had been not integrated with the report (but “ coming soon,” according to the commission).

However, despite the report’s problems, there may be positive information for healthcare suppliers. In Massachusetts, spending per capita on healthcare is 36 % larger than the U.S. typical, and 9 percent increased than the up coming highest state, at least based mostly on 2009 figures. The sum invested on healthcare per Massachusetts resident is $ 9,238 in contrast to the national average of  $ six,815.

Of that 36 percent in higher expenditures, the commission located that only sixteen % could be attributed to healthcare reform’s insurance coverage mandate, which went into effect in 2006, as well as other aspects this kind of as an older-than-typical population and greater geographic expenses. The other 20 % is left unexplained.

Left unsaid

What the commission report fails to mention is that Massachusetts has often had the highest paying per capita on healthcare, going back to 1991 (see web page eleven of this report). This is not a new trend. Select any yr and Massachusetts is initial or second (excluding the District of Columbia).

What the report appears to indicate is that healthcare reform in Massachusetts, which went into impact in 2006, did not topple the state from its perch atop all other states in healthcare spending per capita, at least not by 2009. Healthcare paying has continued apace with other states.

The report is not viewed as good news in Massachusetts. No state wants to be “number one” in paying. Furthermore the commission, in its summary and press releases, has been selling yet another 1 of these unexplained statistics, namely that anywhere from 21 % to  39 percent of all healthcare investing is “wasteful.”

The estimate seems to be drawn by taking a broad range of national estimates by analysts and academics, and then applying those raw percentages to Massachusetts. That’s a very best guess, nonetheless, as the commission has not launched the appendix that explained how it calculated the estimates.

Even if the commission believes that as numerous as forty cents out of every dollar spent on healthcare is wasteful, it advisable reforms that, even if they had been 100 % successful, only would save a nickel. Furthermore, several of these reforms are presently in place as component of the federal Patient Safety and Cost-effective Care Act.

“Some of the report’s worries concerning ‘unnecessary’ healthcare care are legitimate, but the report glosses more than some of the non-hospital systemic problems that support drive ‘unnecessary’ care and numerous of the very genuine improvements that hospitals in Massachusetts have currently attained,” wrote the Massachusetts Hospital Association in response to the report’s release. “Some of the report’s claims also foster misunderstanding about expense variations amongst distinct types of hospitals, which tends to make for provocative sound bites but in the long run fails to shed light on the real problems in the value debate.”

Healthcare Reform Excellent For Companies?