Report comment

Alistair,
You state that:
"Various interest groups, most significantly the British Medical Association and Royal College of GPs, are intent on riding the wave of suspicion about the reforms".

I don't how much more evidence you need that increasing NHS privatisation is on the cards, but the public interest lawyer, Peter Roderick, adds significantly to the "debate". Surfs up!
Please see: http://www.dutytoprovide.net/

He states the following:
A direct line of logic can now be traced in the Bill:
(a) from removing the duty on the Secretary of State to provide or secure provision, through the “hands-off clause” and the wide range of powers and duties given on the face of the Bill to the clinical commissioning groups which they must be “free” to exercise without “unnecessary burdens”;
(b) backed up by procurement and competition law requirements that are enhanced by the Bill, and reinforced by removal of the private income cap on NHS Foundation Trusts; and
(c) continuing through to a member of a commissioning group, such as a private health company, being entitled to exercise the group’s powers and duties, including awarding contracts and charging for commercial activities, if the group
decides amongst itself to say so in its constitution,

which leads to the unavoidable conclusion that if the Bill was to be enacted, the legal stage would be set for private companies to be entitled to run much of the NHS and for market forces to determine the way many health services are provided.

"Thus, the main concern remains that the fundamental legal basis for the NHS, which was put in place in 1946, will be removed by the Government’s Health and Social Care Bill."

Meanwhile, the editorial staff of the HSJ continue to think that it is the vested interests of the medical profession that are making this all up!