Burnham tells Lansley to back down on health reforms
The government should back down on its white paper reforms in response to “fierce criticism” from professional bodies, the shadow health secretary has said.
In a letter to the health secretary Andrew Lansley, shadow and former health secretary Andy Burnham has backed the British Medical Association’s critical response to the white paper consultation.
The letter says: “Your plans are completely unacceptable to us and if you proceed on the basis you have set out, we will launch a major campaign in every community.”
Mr Burnham proposes that the Liberating the NHS white paper be changed into a green paper to allow for “further engagement and development on a range of policy proposals”.
Following the BMA’s warning over the “implosion” of PCTs, Mr Burnham has asked Mr Lansley to delay their abolition in order to give the NHS “organisational stability” in a time of change.
The letter says: “I believe the lack of a population-wide commissioning body is a major flaw in your plans, and I would argue for the retention of PCTs or a similar statutory body in the NHS.”
A new shadow cabinet, which may include a new shadow health secretary, is due to be announced on 7 October. Mr Burham’s letter repeated his demand - made in his speech to the Labour Party conference on Wednesday - for the government to put its health plans on hold.
The Labour MP also suggests that the GP commissioning model should be piloted and for “evidence to be gathered to make the argument for national roll-out”.
“It would enable us to debate a major hole in your plans – the arrangements for specialised commissioning. I find it staggering that you have published a white paper that does not adequately address this critical area of the NHS.”
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.
Share
Readers' comments (4)
Anonymous | 1-Oct-2010 8:19 pm
Mr Burnham better late than never.The last Labour Government laid the groundwork for everything the coalition is planning to do to the NHS. The market structures, foundation trusts, as well as the insertion of American corporations into commissioning and GP consortia were all products of the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown version of “public service reform”.Burdening GPs with commissioning against their will is unfair, will not work and is likely to create a degree of chaos in the system that will be costly to remedy and not necessarily be in the best interests of patients. Further, Nuffield Trust research suggests that GP commissioning may add £1.2 billion to NHS expenditure. Any dysfunction could threaten secondary and tertiary care. In these unchartered waters, no one wins.
Unsuitable or offensive?
dennis shaw | 2-Oct-2010 1:54 pm
IF THEY DONTE BACK DOWN THE N H S WILL BE GOING BACK TO THE 1930 DENNIS SHAW
Unsuitable or offensive?
Joe Bloggs | 3-Oct-2010 9:34 am
Anon 8:19 makes sense. It is difficult in effect to make much distinction between Labour and Coalition policy. The latter wanting more or the same offered by Labour including competition. It's hard to see just what Labour could launch a 'major campaign' on that wouldn't be an own goal.
Their are GPs that want this. The many do not. Why is that such a surprise? I'd be more worried if GPs were rushing in their thousands! The problem is what type of GP we get running our health commissioning. At the micro level competencies are undefined. Willingness seems to be the primary requirement. We need proper competencies. I am still deeply concerned about the governance and accountability arrangements. Such consortia cannot work on trust and I'm fairly sure the CQC will fail. So we'd be left with auditors and the NHS commissioning board, probably led by Nicholson if he hasn't been sacked, to protect us. Most unsatisfactory.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Joe Bloggs | 3-Oct-2010 10:06 am
'there' not 'their'! My fault. No excuses but it raises another point though: writing in this little yellow box HSJ is really difficult; especially on mobile devises. Can you make the site more like FB or Bebo? Perhaps even create an app?
Unsuitable or offensive?