Lansley accelerates his plans as Labour’s opposition falters
The government’s reforms are picking up pace.
Almost every significant response to the Liberating the NHS consultation advised the Department of Health to slow down its programme. Instead, the coalition is tightening up the timetable.
The original reform chronology gave the government flexibility to keep the old system going into 2014, should GP commissioning struggle to take off. Now primary care trusts will be gone by April 2013 at the latest and strategic health authorities 12 months before that.
Very risky, but logical too. Running systems in parallel would have been confusing. The challenge now is to make the right decisions at the right time. For example, the national commissioning board will launch as a shadow organisation in less than five months. Should the government ensure it has a chair and chief executive by then, or wait for the right people? It is likely to wait.
Related to this quickening of pace is confidence that the Health Bill is guaranteed safe passage through Parliament. Ministers believe coalition backbenchers are supportive (not “shocked” or “surprised” as some have claimed) and the rougher seas of the Lords can be crossed given the following wind provided by strong commons backing.
Health secretary Andrew Lansley’s job will be made easier by his Labour shadow John Healey’s unwillingness to set out an alternative vision. Political attacks lose credibility when critics cannot suggest what they would do in their opponent’s place. The real Westminster action will be provided by the Commons health committee inquiry into commissioning.
There is one other potential obstacle, one Mr Lansley has created for himself. The Mid Staffordshire public inquiry will report in March. Its recommendations on the accountability of commissioners, regulators and politicians might sit uneasily with the health secretary’s desire to devolve responsibility.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.
Share
Readers' comments (6)
Anonymous | 12-Nov-2010 6:11 pm
I'm pretty appalled by the lack of any coherent, sustained and organised public information campaign from Labour. Seriously disappointed.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Martin Rathfelder | 15-Nov-2010 8:24 am
Didn't most commentators feel that Labour had left the NHS in quite good condition in June? And when was it exactly when Lansley announced his plans for the liberation of the NHS - the top down reorganisation which he said he wasn't going to do? It certainly wasn't featured in HSJ during the last 6 years.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 15-Nov-2010 12:15 pm
Re: Martin Rathfelder's question "Didn't most commentators feel that Labour had left the NHS in quite good condition in June?". Quite simply NO. And all NHS Organisations were preparing for VERY significant efficiency savings before the Coalition Government got anywhere near the NHS!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 17-Nov-2010 0:09 am
Anon 12:15, I think the Socialist picture in Martin's post suggests he is perhaps biased in some way...just maybe!
I've no doubt the ill-informed, naive, DH board and most SHAs voted Labour; thinking their jobs would be protected under Labour. They knew what a conservative gov meant, although I suspect they too were shocked with Lansley's plan. I was present when the person currently leading the new commissioning board said Conservatives would be bad for inequalities and won't invest in deprived areas, which would be bad for the region. So much for political independence of civil servants. The PCT CEOs all sat and nodded, scared to pass any negative comment to their SHA CE. Much too much politics is being played out by amateurs, many with no wish to state views in case it doesn't concur with the DH. Even CEs are afraid of the consequences of having an opinion. This is a really unhealthy place to be.
Anyone who has seen both Labour and Cons methodically dismantle the NHS, since 1948, voted Lib Dem, although that backfired too. Don't say Bevin was Labour because He was opposed by many hon. friends. Politicians (in all their forms) micro managing the NHS rather than setting policy and measuring outcomes, is one of the single biggest issues facing us all today.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 17-Nov-2010 4:52 am
The NHS needs dismantling as it can not continue in it's present, expensive, unwieldily form. By dismantling, the best bits will rise from the ashes, the bits we didn't need will disappear and therefore not consume scarce resources. When something is so broken, only radical action will work; tinkering at the edges, hoping it will all get better one day, is not a strategy that is proven to work.
What also needs dismantling is the current corrosive power culture in the NHS. It needs strong leaders who are compassionate, open and honest and with strong values, working solely on the patient's behalf. That's a health service we would all recognise. I have my fingers crossed!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 17-Nov-2010 11:51 am
It sounds as though the Mid Staffs Inquiry may not report until the summer next year; I wonder if the Secretary of State has the patience to wait that long, or whether he will like what he may hear.
Unsuitable or offensive?