SPOKESMAN BOOKS |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Haditha Ethics - From Iraq to Iran? The Spokesman, 91 Reviews Alison
Talbot Smith & Allyson M.Pollock, The
New NHS: A Guide,
Now
that owners of UK capital see little opportunity of making money in productive
industries – mining and manufacturing – and the infra-structure of
transport and power and water supplies is in their hands, they have turned
their attention increasingly to the service sector. Distribution and retail
services are theirs, apart from the struggling Co-op. But the public services
remain to be captured, and with the enthusiastic help of New Labour that is
what, under the deceptive name of ‘reform’, is now happening. The end is
already in sight of any public services remaining – in housing, education,
health, police or prisons – and with this the end of democratic control and
social accountability to public bodies. The means adopted is that government
– and increasingly central and not local government – commissions the
provision and provides the funds and the private sector supplies the service,
within some limited regulation of provision, such as is applied to private
companies generally. Dexter
Whitfield has devoted his life to the defence of the public sector through
research, writing, advice and organisation, not least through the Centre for
Public Services, which he founded in 1973 and whose work he continues in the
University of Northumbria. This the latest of several books and pamphlets he
has written gathers together much earlier research in arguing the case against
the drive of neoliberalism which is encouraging the marketisation of public
services. Whitfield emphasises the central role of the state in creating the
conditions for successful marketisation. The market cannot function without
laws to enforce contracts, financial concessions to business, such as export
finance, tax relief, public subsidies, local and regional grants, and above
all the promotion of the ideology and value system of competition, personal
greed and corporate power. Marketisation, moreover, involves the opening up of
the in-house services of public providers not only to private suppliers at
home but to giant transnational corporations. What
Dexter has done in this new book is to collect together the whole history of
the way in which step-by-step the working of the market and the ethos of
business competition has been brought into the public sector in the United
Kingdom, replacing all practices and ideals of collective responsibility. The
result is made abundantly clear in the growing inequality of provision for
those who are well placed financially and those who are not. The emphasis on
‘choice’ simply means choice for those who live in the right places and
know how to work the system, whether this refers to hospital treatment or
school places. Only those who can see their way to affording or borrowing for
university fees and maintenance charges continue into higher education.
Business involvement in provision, whether in public private partnerships in
hospital building and management or in the financing and running of schools,
means that the bottom line is always profit. So-called parent power comes down
to the influence of unelected managers and company executives. The
ideology of the market is based on the assumption that competition ensures
that actions base on ignorance, domination or incompetence are simply ruled
out. So it is argued that private is always to be preferred to public. Yet,
the most extraordinary fact about New Labour’s marketisation is that nothing
works. The total incompetence in the prison service, partly now privatised, is
the most glaring example. Another was the famous computerisation of passports
by a private company. But Dexter has drawn up detailed lists of the extra
costs incurred in The
last thirty pages of Dexter’s book are concerned with outlining in some
detail an alternative strategy. This emphasises improving community well being
with preventive action, democratic accountability, involving NHS workers and
patients, equalities and social justice as the basis for advances, sustainable
development through care for local and regional needs, protecting the public
interest locally and regionally as well as nationally, financial transparency
and economies of scale in finance and, finally, training and intellectual
capacity building. Dexter proposes a whole sheaf of strategies to oppose
marketisation and to support alternative policies by mobilising alliances and
campaigns around particular issues – many of them necessarily local. He does
not forget at the end the important lessons for other European states, where
marketisation and Much
of what Whitfield writes will be criticised by New Labour as coming from an
old Socialist, but, in relation at least to the NHS, everything he writes is
supported by the conclusions of the new book by Dr. Alison Talbot-Smith, who
once worked for the NHS, and Professor Allyson Pollock, who used to research
and write for the British Medical Association and is now head of the Centre
for International Public Health Policy at Edinburgh University. The book
consists mainly of the most thorough description of the way in which, in their
words, ‘a publicly-funded system of publicly owned and provided health care
is being replaced by a health care market…’ Chapters deal with
‘Organisations with strategic roles’; ‘Organisations commissioning
services’, ‘Organisations providing services’; ‘Funding and
resources’; ‘Efficiency and standards’; ‘Research and development and
research governance’; ‘The NHS workforce’; ‘Devolution of the NHS in
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland’. They are full of valuable facts and
figures. When
the authors come to looking into the future, they conclude that ‘The
day when the NHS becomes mainly a funder of health care – a “logo”
attached to the provision of health care by private hospitals and surgeries
– no longer seems remote.’ Then
they ask a series of key questions: ‘First,
how far the new NHS will, or can, continue to serve the values and aims of the
original NHS, namely services which are universal, comprehensive, and free at
the point of delivery. Second how far the market-based system, adopted for the
sake of efficiency, will actually be more efficient than what it is
replacing.’ Their
answers are given from here on in quotations from their last chapter.
Universality, they argue, implies equity of resource allocation and service
distribution, but they say that ‘Under
the new system, control over resource allocation will be devolved to private
or voluntary sector commissioners with no responsibility to meet the health
care needs of a defined population … providers will try to concentrate on
the most profitable treatments, services and patients and avoid the least
profitable… Some commissioners and some providers will be liable to make
losses and have to cut services…(Already) cuts are making existing
inequalities worse, both across areas, and between and within patient
groups.’ A
related issue is whether any part of the NHS is now responsible for relating
services to needs and ensuring universal access. ‘Second,
as regards comprehensiveness, what mechanism will ensure that services for
patients with conditions that are inherently hard to predict and relatively
costly to treat – older patients with several chronic diseases or the frail
elderly, for example – will continue to be provided? The NHS no longer
provides truly comprehensive care Third,
as regards the provision of services free at the point of delivery; if many
trusts and foundation trusts continue to find themselves in persistent
deficits, what will stop this leading to a new demand (from all quarters) to
find additional sources of funding in the form of ‘user fees’ – for
so-called ‘hotel costs’ in hospitals, or for ‘enhanced services’? …
Another proposal is vouchers, whereby every patient would receive an equal
entitlement to a fixed amount of treatment, but have to pay for additional
care. Vouchers are already government policy for the young disabled and the
2006 White Paper proposes to extend their use in social care and long term
care … Once the market is in full operation then ‘topping up’ of one
kind or another is likely to follow, undermining all the goals of the NHS. As
regards efficiency… Given that much of the healthcare budget is spent on
staff and so much health care is labour intensive, depending on thousands of
interactions between patients and highly trained and experienced clinicians,
how far can ‘business efficiency’ be expected to improve the balance
sheets without downgrading the service through reductions in funding of levels
and quality of staff? … Second, do the gains from adopting a
‘business-like’ approach to service provision outweigh the costs of
operating in a market such as making and monitoring contracts, paying for
capital, invoicing and accounting for every completed treatment, marketing
services and dealing with fraud …? Third, how will the answers to any
questions about efficiency be known if the financial operations of foundation
trusts, as well as of the private sector providers and commissioners, which
are to become part of the NHS ‘mainstream’, are to be treated as
‘commercially confidential’ (as the independent regulator, Monitor, has
already decided some of them will be). All
these questions raise the general question of public accountability … Will
any avenue then remain for the public to challenge the decisions made by
private bodies and shareholders on their behalf?’ The
authors end by hoping that the questions they have raised will encourage
others to ask questions. They provide an excellent starting point. Michael
Barratt Brown
|
Spokesman Books, Russell House, Bulwell Lane, Nottingham NG6 0BT England tel: 0115 970 8318 | fax: 0115 942 0433
|