The Guardian view on NHS reform: evidence not dogma should be the guide | Editorial

For any authorities considering NHS reform, the 2012 Well being and Social Care Act is a textbook case of what to not do. Regardless of guarantees of “no extra pointless reorganisations”, the Tory well being secretary Andrew Lansley did simply that, abolishing administration tiers and imposing new care commissioning and competitors techniques on reluctant docs.

The entire thing was a political nightmare that wasted sources, demoralised employees and undermined public confidence. In an unbiased report printed earlier this yr, Lord Darzi described the Lansley methodology as “scorched earth”, from which NHS administration capability has not but totally recovered. And that was earlier than the total social price of austerity had weighed on the well being service, and earlier than it had been battered by the Covid pandemic.

The troublesome process of rehabilitation now falls to Wes Streeting, the present well being secretary. He has some cash to spend. The chancellor lately boosted his departmental finances by £22.6bn over the subsequent two years. However the quid professional quo is reform. Given previous expertise, it’s hardly shocking that weary NHS employees flinch on the very phrase. However many additionally recognise that present techniques aren’t working and that restricted sources may very well be higher deployed. That’s the message Mr Streeting delivered to NHS leaders on Wednesday. There might be a brand new regime of efficiency analysis, with league tables.

Underperforming bosses might be ineligible for pay rises and will face removing. NHS trusts that handle their budgets astutely will have the ability to retain and make investments their surpluses as a substitute of feeding them again into the central pot. This regime is supposed to reward practices that increase productiveness, which is at the moment dire. Infusions of cash in recent times have stored the NHS afloat however not translated into higher service.

Mr Streeting’s ambition is modest in scale in contrast with the Lansley method, nevertheless it nonetheless entails disruption and is bound to satisfy resistance – some from a spot of justified scepticism, some expressing an automated aversion to vary.

Hackles might be raised throughout the political spectrum. The factor of competitors between trusts, the whiff of market incentives, will draw opprobrium from the left. On the best, fans for a extra sturdy market-driven method will complain that bureaucratic analysis and never shopper selection is the instrument for discerning success.

The time period “Blairite” might be utilized, often with pejorative intent. That designation positive factors credence from the appointment of Alan Milburn, a New Labour-era well being secretary, to advise his former division. However previous labels, upsetting previous animosities, can obscure greater than they illuminate.

There are actually classes that Mr Streeting ought to be taught from the final Labour authorities’s combined file of public sector reform. He should be particularly cautious of the perverse unintended penalties that league tables can generate. Gaming the system to stand up the rankings won’t equate to raised service for sufferers.

However additionally it is true that well-paid public sector managers must be accountable and judged by efficiency. Failure ought to have penalties. How that self-discipline is enforced, whether or not it actually interprets into a greater NHS, will rely on exact components of design within the reforms and ministerial readiness to adapt if it isn’t working.

A reform programme that begins from a place of ideological zeal and ignores what is definitely occurring on the bottom is a recipe for failure, as Mr Lansley proved. This time round, when judging Mr Streeting’s plan, consideration to element, following proof of improved service, not ideological dogma, must be the tenet for critics and supporters alike.

  • Do you might have an opinion on the problems raised on this article? If you want to submit a response of as much as 300 phrases by electronic mail to be thought of for publication in our letters part, please click on right here.

Leave a Comment