Commons passes NHS reforms

[dana_b]

Source: Financial Times


By Kiran Stacey, Political Correspondent

MPs approved the government’s controversial health reforms on Wednesday evening after the health bill made it through a bruising Commons session largely unscathed.

A handful of Liberal Democrat backbenchers voted against the bill, which will give greater power to doctors to decide how to spend their budgets, but it passed its third reading by 316 votes to 251, a government majority of 65.


Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, said: “Our plans have undergone rigorous scrutiny, led by the NHS Future Forum. They have stood up to the test. No secret plan was unearthed to privatise the NHS, only suggestions put forward to strengthen it.”

But Labour continued to oppose the measures, which will also open the health service to greater internal competition. John Healey, the shadow health secretary, said: “David Cameron is undermining the NHS with an incompetent and bureaucratic reorganisation which puts profit before patients.”



Read more: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/06ea1a3c-d970-11e0-b52f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1XJ4q6jYF

---

more at the link

[LeftishBrit]

1. Ugh

Not surprising - but ugh. I know there are still some amendments coming up, and I hope that damn thing will be modified - or even defeated when it goes to the House of Lords.

And did I say ugh?

[dana_b]

2. you can say it all that you want!

ugh indeed. Conservatives and few other choice folks just can't leave a good thing alone.

[Yo_Mama]

3. Can you explain what this really does?

I read, but I do not get it.

[LeftishBrit]

4. It's a reorganization of the NHS

In particular, they intend that the primary care trusts, that currently manage much of healthcare, should be replaced by 'commissioning groups' of doctors, both GPs and hospital doctors. This basically means that doctors should be required to take on the additional role of financial administators. Most don't want to.

Even worse, the intention is to increase 'choice' by patients and commissioning groups, by opening up NHS service provision to non-NHS organizations -e.g. private insurance companies (sounds familiar?), so long as the alternative organizations 'meet NHS standards and cost the same or less'. Basically, this means that organizations may well be selected for cheapness rather than quality. This has already been happening for some time with regard to non-medical services, such as hospital cleaning for which 'competition' was introduced some years ago, with damaging results.

The bill had already undergone some amendment, but not enough; indeed the bill really needs scrapping.

Ugh.

Just ugh.

At least Nadine Dorries was defeated in an attempt to use it as a vehicle for her anti-abortion hobbyhorses. But still - ugh.

[Yo_Mama]

6. Thank you very much for the explanation

I tried to figure this out before, but I always come a cropper over the role of the doctor/hospital groups that are supposed to allocate everything. I can't figure out how it is possible or what this would do for health care.

Is it some push to have the doctors make rationing decisions?

I also don't understand this outside organization stuff a bit. Somewhere in there, they are attempting to pit various groups against each other IMO.

[LeftishBrit]

8. I rhink the basic purpose is to reduce the decision-making role of government....

increase the opportunity for insurance companies and other private organizations to make a profit (sounds familiar?) and generally model the NHS on something more like private business. And yes, guve the doctors more of a role in making rationing decisions.

[enlightenment]

5. I'll second that ugh

and raise you a damn them to hell.

ugh.

[harmonicon]

7. It truly is a disgusting situation...

... when you're hoping for the House of Lords to be the voice of reason.