Abolishing NHS England

Discussion in 'Other health news and research' started by Sly Saint, Mar 13, 2025 at 5:34 PM.

  1. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    10,185
    Location:
    UK
    NHS England: Why world's biggest quango is being axed - BBC News
     
    Ariel, alktipping, hinterland and 3 others like this.
  2. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    16,367
    Location:
    London, UK
    What they really need to do is to axe the purchaser/provider separation the 'internal non-market'. That would save not just millions but billions.
     
  3. Suffolkres

    Suffolkres Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,702
    Is that the jolly procurement exercise currently underway in Sufolk and NE Essex!?

    AI says,
    The "internal non-market NHS" refers to the NHS structure before the 1990s, where regional health authorities controlled healthcare provision, and the 2019 NHS Long Term Plan aimed to move away from a market-based system by establishing integrated care systems. '
    '
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2025 at 6:21 PM
    Ariel, alktipping and bobbler like this.
  4. Utsikt

    Utsikt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,227
    Location:
    Norway
    As a non-brit - what’s that?
     
    Ariel and alktipping like this.
  5. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    16,367
    Location:
    London, UK
    When I said internal non-market I meant the 'Internal Market' invented by Margaret Thatcher's team that isn't market.

    The NHS is divided into 'purchasers' and 'providers' as if there were market forces ensuring quality through competition but ineffective there is never any real competition and most of the time contracts go to bidders who seem cheap but fail to provide things like training.

    The system perpetuates the bogus division between 'primary' and 'secondary' care, which is now a complete anachronism (if it ever made sense). It also perpetuates the myth that hospital care is 'expensive' by averaging out all the cost of all activities, including heart transplantation along with holiday vaccinations.

    Vast sums of money are spent on staff who prepare and send bills between one half of the system and the other. The only possible reason to have such a system is to penny-pinch and penny-pinching is one of the most expensive things you can do within a public service.
     
    Lou B Lou, Ariel, alktipping and 3 others like this.
  6. Utsikt

    Utsikt Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,227
    Location:
    Norway
    Sounds like something some of my economics professors would endorse.. Thank you for explaining!
     
    Ariel and alktipping like this.
  7. MrMagoo

    MrMagoo Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,580
    Nothing says public sector like centralising a decentralised service, which used to be centralised!
     
    Ariel, Amw66 and alktipping like this.
  8. Creekside

    Creekside Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,400
    Have any "radical overhaul" of a healthcare system provided real benefits to the patients? Alberta has radically restructured provincial healthcare several times over the past few years, and I doubt that patients noticed any improvements.
     
    Sean, Lou B Lou and Ariel like this.
  9. Sean

    Sean Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,673
    Location:
    Australia
    In my experience of this world 'radical overhaul/reform' almost always is a cover for cost & service cuts. Rarely ends well.
     
    Wonko likes this.

Share This Page