Comment above concerning lack of competition in Primary Care is surely not quite correct? GP Practices are private contactors providing services on behalf of the NHS. The implication is that the GP market is sufficuently saturated as to limit it's attractivenes to additional suppliers. If anything, it indicates that market forces alone cannot be relied upon to drive change. Standards, informed by the outcomes achieved by the best performers (whether in primary or secondary care services) must inevitably underline any commissioing framework. Has the discussion about the appropriateness of the structures become an unhelpful diversion - as so often is does?
Comment on: Ministers set out FT failure regime
The administrator cometh: It is clear that where Organisational mergers fail to bring about financially sustainable services, the further rationalisation driven by the 'administrators' will be left to achieve the required efficiencies. This process is highly unlikely to preserve equitable access to service provision or to sustain good quality of care. There may be do direct monetary costs to patients but they will pay in terms of the impact on ready access, capacity and the quality available.
There are vast numbers of GPs out there who just want to get on with being GPs. Can we really be sure that those who like engaging in NHS politics and the activites involved with commissioning services are really any better placed to make judgements about where funding should be directed than under existing arrangements?