Save The NHS

I joined the Lobby of Parliament against privatisation of the NHS today.  I wasn't too clued up on what was actually happening to the NHS before I went. It doesn't seem to make the news much. I'm not politically active but having heard about what is about to happen I think this issue is very relevant to Harringay (and everywhere else in England) so I'm making this post. Please delete if it doesn't comply with the rules.

I heard a number of MPs and Lords, of several parties, along with some Unions and Local Activists, speaking about the new Regulations (S12013/500) first introduced by section 75 of the 2006 Health Act, and what this will lead to.

At a minimum expect, in the very near future, what happened to Dentistry - charges, withdrawal of free treatments... leading to full privatisation. Furthermore the proposed EU/US Trade Agreement will enable US Companies into the UK Health Market. That'll be great.

Despite the reassuring words of Hunt et al, a leading QC's view is the CGCs will have to put NHS services out to tender. Once services are taken over by private companies the NHS part is gone... forever.

£3 billion has been spent in setting up the new Clinical Commissioning Groups (CGCs). And this year £2.2 billion underspent is going back to the Treasury ...while hospitals are closing, reducing services, selling land and buildings...

Ken Loach's Spirit of '45 was recently screened for MPs in Parliament. Three Labour MPs attended.

It's not happening anywhere else in the UK other than England. Apparently Welsh NHS management are studying the imminent problem of English Health Tourists...

Advice given at the meeting was to write to Tory, Lib and Cross Bench Peers and Tory and LibDem MPs, i.e. ignore Labour.

Last chance of stopping it here: http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/1188

Templates here http://www.keepournhspublic.com/index.php

I've written to my MP Lynne Featherstone as follows:

Dear Mrs Featherstone,

National Health Service (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) (No. 2) Regulations SI 2013/500 – Early Day Motion 1188
I am writing to you to urge you to sign EDM (1188) which prays against the amended regulations which were published on 11 March.  The Government withdrew the earlier regulations it had laid following the outcry which took place when it became clear that ministers promises to Parliament during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012  were being broken.  In particular, the regulations removed from Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) the promised right to make the choices they saw fit to make in your constituency and those of other MPs.
Careful reading of and legal advice on the amended regulations tells us that these regulations , just as before, will drive the NHS to privatisation, restricting the autonomy of the new local CCGs so that they will have no choice but to go out to competition.
 What are the key differences between the old and the new regulations, and what do the changes mean?
Regulation 2 now includes reference to CCGs being enabled to make contracting decisions which facilitate integration across health and social care services, but Counsel’s opinion is that this will be subordinate to Regulation 5 which will require CCGs to use competition for each particular NHS service, and they will not be able to use Regulation 2 to justify awarding a contract to an existing provider without competition.  They are not responsible for social care services so cannot include them in the contract.

Regulation 5 of the old regulations said that commissioners could only award a contract without competition in a case of extreme urgency not created by the commissioner or for narrow technical reasons.  This has been removed from the new Regulation 5, so it appears that commissioners have more scope to award a contract without competition.  However, they are still required to demonstrate that the service is only capable of being provided by one provider, and in effect the only acceptable proof of this will be putting the service out to tender.  Catch 22.

Regulation 10 now appears to give commissioners the right to engage in ‘anti-competitive behaviour’ if it is in the best interests of patients so to do.  This appears to be giving permission for CCGs to make arrangements with an NHS trust without competition.  This power would be likely to be challenged by other providers under competition law.  But also the Commissioners’ judgement on this would be subordinate to that of the regulator Monitor, and since that body is the driver of these competition changes, it is highly unlikely that it will permit such actions.  Deeply embedded in the thinking of economists and lawyers specialising in competition law is the belief that competition empowers consumers.  This may be true when consumers are buying simple products and cost and quality are clear, but it is clearly much more problematic to apply this thinking to a complex service where professional judgement plays such a key part.  Nonetheless, their interpretation of such phrases as ‘in the interests of patients’ is that this will always be best served by competition.

Many people applauded the apparent localism in the 2012 Act, giving the people who really know the local health service the power to direct its future.  These regulations snatch localism away by forcing CCGs into a straitjacket of competition law.  I believe they should have the right to use competition, or not, as they see fit, not according to the judgement of an unelected quango such as Monitor.

Please use all your best endeavours to ensure that these regulations do not get through, and sign up to EDM1188.

 

Yours faithfully