Do GPs have 'the balls' to decommission hospital care?
GPs must not “shirk” the challenge of downsizing NHS hospitals, GP and health commentator Phil Hammond argues in this week’s HSJ.
Dr Hammond, who covers health for Private Eye, claims: “There are too many hospitals swallowing up too much money for too little return.”
He continues: “Unless we start merging specialist services, the NHS will remain as unsafe and unsustainable as it always was. Commissioning consortia are soon to inherit the commissioning budget and the buck will pass neatly to them. But will GPs have the balls to make those difficult ‘Daily Mail camping on your lawn’ decisions?”.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.
Share
Readers' comments (8)
Patrick Newman | 19-Jan-2011 1:25 pm
And who will pick up the bill for the costs of de-commissioning?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Bob Neilans | 19-Jan-2011 3:04 pm
Regrettably, and with all due deference to GPs abilities, they will need support to think across acute/county boundaries. And there are excellent commissioners within some PCTs who, freed from statist interference, are more than qualified to take on that strategic role and game changing role!
Unsuitable or offensive?
mike batt | 19-Jan-2011 3:36 pm
Ah, more nonsense. You could de-commission fresh water supplies if you had the power, but unless you have a substitute for the required service and manage the demand for it somehow, then you will fail.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 20-Jan-2011 8:31 am
I am still not clear .
Do we have patients choice or choice for the patient?
Does the money follow the patient or the money lead the patient?
Do commissioners manage healthcare provision or licence healthcare provision?
What powers do commissioners have to force rationalisation of specialist or large scale provision?
For example everyone knows there would be 20% savings from consolidating pathology services but no one does it. How will GP commissioning change that?
Unsuitable or offensive?
SJ Burnell | 20-Jan-2011 10:37 am
What is Patient Choice? Outside of London, many people have one hospital within easy travel so it's only a choice of Appointment Time? We simply want access to a clean, safe local hospital with well motivated, skilled staff - that would be our Choice. So, the question becomes "Will GP's have the required new Tools & Expertise to ensure poor hospitals become better hospitals or are replaced by clinicaly superior Services that are acceptable to us as both Patient & Taxpayer?"
Unsuitable or offensive?
mike batt | 20-Jan-2011 12:23 pm
Answer to above is no, otherwise CQC wouldn't need to exist. I think anybody can spot what is worng with this scenario: local decsions, made in Whitehall; money follows patient, but patient need dictated by commissioner; patient choice, but services commissioned by professionals. It is totally incoherant as a model. Central Control and monitoring - fine. Local commissioing, local targets - fine. Patient choice - choice drives quality - fine. Mix and Match - doesn't work.
Unsuitable or offensive?
John Toby | 20-Jan-2011 2:11 pm
I think the 'balls' will only follow the development of a vision or visions (also a biological necessity!) of the future of care led by GP consortia and based in primary care. The first requirement is for GPs, local NHS colleagues and patients to articulate the potential for developing the NHS locally and then try to match this with the various diktats rather than simply respond to the incoherence without clarity about local aspirations. The tools needed to analyse and support specific issues will also become more apparent. Cases for decommissioning will then be clearer and, hopefully, more persuasive.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 20-Jan-2011 2:41 pm
If GPs cannot manage to order enough flu vaccine do we seriously think they can manage appropriate local commisioning?
Unsuitable or offensive?