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.
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. ' '
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.
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.
In my experience of this world 'radical overhaul/reform' almost always is a cover for cost & service cuts. Rarely ends well.