By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

'Accountability in the NHS is a mess'

Ministers in Whitehall have excessive powers to interfere and meddle in local operational issues, with primary care trusts controlled by strategic health authorities and SHAs by Whitehall.

Accountability in the NHS is centralised, opaque and confusing. One of the central aims of the Health Bill, introduced this week, is to introduce clear and transparent accountability to the NHS.

Ministers will no longer be able to cut across the independent decisions made by the commissioning board or the regulators

There are many aspects to the new accountability system, too many for a short article. But I shall outline some of the main changes.

First, patient power. The central premise of the modernisation of the NHS is to put patients first. Patients and the public will have more direct control and influence over the health service than ever before. Patient choice will be extended into every area it is possible to do so. From choice of GP, hospital, consultant and even, where appropriate, treatment. As the money will follow the patient, their decisions will matter as never before.

The public will also be represented in local decision making through the new local HealthWatch organisations, a development of local involvement networks. The new NHS Commissioning Board and commissioning consortia will also have a clear obligation to involve people in their planning decisions.

Second, local authority power. This government believes that there should be real local democratic legitimacy for decisions about local services. Local authorities will have the power to require information and attendance at scrutiny meetings of any provider that is funded by the NHS. This includes the scrutiny of GP practices, dentists, pharmacies, and independent and voluntary sector providers.

Third, clear national accountability. The Health Bill will set out clearly the roles and responsibilities of the health secretary, the NHS commissioning board, commissioning consortia, Monitor, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the Health and Social Care Information Centre.

While ministers will still be ultimately responsible for the NHS to Parliament, our role will be to promote the autonomy of NHS organisations and to set the direction of the health service through a mandate that will be subject to full annual public consultation.

This mandate will set out clearly what the government expects from the NHS within that year.

If something goes wrong in a consortium, it will be for the NHS commissioning board to act. If there is a failure in quality of care, it will be the Care Quality Commission’s responsibility. Ministers will no longer be able to cut across the independent decisions made by the commissioning board or the regulators.

A devolved NHS with independent providers and patient choice needs a system of accountability that is crystal clear. The provisions in the bill will provide that clarity.

Readers' comments (8)

  • Absolute tosh. Instead the ministers and DH will be able to wash their hands of any vestige of accountability and devolve decision making to the big American companies and their lobby groups.

    As we move to an American system I'll be watching with interest to see how many of the architects of this wholesale privatisation of the NHS will end up on the boards of the same companies who will gobble up the tasty profits just waiting to be made.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • So the 'opaque and confusing' accountability structure in the NHS is being replaced by one with too many aspects to mention in what is already a verbose and difficult article. As untrustworthy as he looks, that man.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • @1.45pm - totally agree - even Sir Humphrey Appleby would stop short of saying that plans for clarity and transparency are too complicated to explain.

    Do these people have no sense of irony??

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • For people power read self interested pressure groups. And when the first hint of public opposition to a hospital closure appears the Minister will be all over it like a rash. Pompous twaddle - it is all about command and control.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • If anyone thinks Lansley and Nicholson will relinquish control they need treatment. This is process of passing blame under the guise of accountability. Those two create the impossible and contradictory rules and they must be held to account. There is no accountability for the conduct, competence, or failure of the NHS commissioning Board for example. Surprised? No one in the NHS is...

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Does Burstow not know the 'iron law of NHS re-dis-organisations' - the more a reform is justified as 'devolution', the more it ends up as centralisation'.

    There is periodic talk of Stalinism in the NHS......but Burstow and the Lib Dems in this Tory-led government remind me of Lenin's characterisation, 'usefool fools.'

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Sounds like Mr Burstow needs to read his own Bill.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Andrew Lansley on BBC PM last week gave the impression that the "wants" of the patient would be tempered by the "expert" knowledge of the GP consortia. The patient "representative" will as ever be the final arbiter.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

Related Jobs

Sign in to see the latest jobs relevant to you!

Sign up to get the latest health policy news direct to your inbox