Nhs

Is Andrew Lansley hearing rather than listening? Dame Barbara Hakin, one of the Department of Health’s national managing directors, has written a letter to some GPs that suggests the pace of health reform will not be affected by the ‘legislative pause’. Hakin writes: ‘Everyone within the Department of Health is very aware of the support shown by the GP community to date and we have been struck by the energy and enthusiasm demonstrated in pathfinders across the country. Therefore, although the Government has taken the opportunity of a natural break in the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill, we are very keen that the momentum we have built

Reassurance — that’s what the happy trio of David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Andrew Lansley sought to emit during their NHS event earlier. And reassurance not just about where the coalition is taking the health service (although there was plenty of that), but also about the “listening exercise” they are engaging in now. Although all three men suggested that the broad scope of the NHS reforms would remain — decentralisation, greater responsibilities for GPs, and all that — they also hinted that “substantive” changes will be made to the Bill as it stands. As for what those changes will look like, there were few specifics. Yet it did sound as

Get your guide to body language out for tomorrow morning Cameron, Clegg and Lansley will be doing a joint event on NHS reforms. The three men all have subtly different messages to get across and there are concerns in Tory circle that Clegg will use the occasion to present himself as the defender of the NHS against these Tory reforms. Cameron will be walking a tightrope at tomorrow’s event. He will have to show that he is listening, that this whole exercise is not a sham, but without abandoning the principles on which the reforms are based. Expect Cameron, who will only have arrived back in the country hours before

The NHS is, as Nigel Lawson once remarked, the new national religion of this country. This makes it difficult to discuss the subject in a rational matter and any attempt to reform it is likely to run into its own Pilgrimage of Grace as Andrew Lansley and the coalition are discovering. The government’s problem is that it can’t do a simple u-turn. As I say in the Mail on Sunday, Cameron can’t shelve this scheme without bringing his own judgement into question. Once Cameron and Clegg signed the introduction to the white paper setting out these reforms, they crossed the Rubicon. So instead the coalition is left trying to tinker and

Was the stooshie over health reforms inevitable? From much of the coverage, you’d think it was always going to end in tears, as people line up to criticise Lansley and rumours about Number 10’s search for a dignified exit strategy (£) swirl around the Westminster village. But it didn’t have to be like this. For a start, the basic idea is one that should be easy to sell to the public. Matthew Parris has pointed out (£) that people intuitively look to their GP as the route into healthcare. It shouldn’t be hard to convince the public they should lead commissioning. It’s been difficult mainly because the health professionals aren’t on-side.

Let’s make one thing clear right from the off: the IFS did not just say that the government would break its pledge to increase health spending in real terms. What it did say is that the government is coming close to breaking it — and that’s the truth. Here’s the graph that we’ve put together to compare the real terms health spending figures in last October’s Spending Review (the green line, calculated using last November’s inflation figures) with those in yesterday’s Budget (the red line, calculated using yesterday’s inflation figures):   Hang on. Doesn’t that show health spending going down in real terms, after this fiscal year? Well, yeah, kinda.

I am in two minds about Andrew Lansley’s proposed reforms of the National Health Service, the cornerstone of which is the transfer of commissioning responsibility from Primary Care Trusts to GP-consortia. On the one hand, the NHS desperately needs radical reform. On the other hand, I’m not sure these are the right reforms, and I’m not sure they are sufficiently radical to deliver a real difference to patients. Let’s start with why the NHS needs reform. Firstly, it is eye-wateringly expensive at 8.1 percent of 2010 GDP, or £120bn a year. Costs have skyrocketed since 1999, doubling in real terms in the 10 years to 2009. Over that same period,

Andrew Lansley’s health reforms have never been in the rosiest of health; but, as Pete observed yesterday, the current malaise may leave permanent damage. Paul Waugh has been speaking to Alan Milburn and the modernising former Health Secretary’s words speak volumes about Lansley’s trails: “I’m amazed they allowed themselves to get into talk about privatisation and cuts. Having originally said this was a revolution they’re now saying it’s just evolution of Labour’s reforms. Politically, it doesn’t make sense. “Look, a managed form of competition is fine. The problem is that the lynchpin of the reforms was GP commissioning. “It’s a good idea to get family doctors to be aware of