ALL >> Health >> View Article
Britain Plans To Decentralize Health Care
Total Articles: 51
LONDON â€” Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain's socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.
Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.
Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England's $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.
The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government's goal to effect $30 billion in â€œefficiency savingsâ€ in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.
In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would â€œcause significant disruption and loss of jobs.â€ But it said: â€œThe current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.â€
The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients. Currently, how and where patients are treated, and by whom, is largely determined by decisions made by 150 entities known as primary care trusts â€” all of which would be abolished under the plan, with some of those choices going to patients. It would also abolish many current government-set targets, like limits on how long patients have to wait for treatment.
The plan, with many elements that need legislative approval to be enacted, applies only to England; other parts of Britain have separate systems.
The government announced the proposals this month. Reactions to them range from pleased to highly skeptical.
Many critics say that the plans are far too ambitious, particularly in the short period of time allotted, and they doubt that general practitioners are the right people to decide how the health care budget should be spent. Currently, the 150 primary care trusts make most of those decisions. Under the proposals, general practitioners would band together in regional consortia to buy services from hospitals and other providers.
It is likely that many such groups would have to spend money to hire outside managers to manage their budgets and negotiate with the providers, thus canceling out some of the savings.
David Furness, head of strategic development at the Social Market Foundation, a study group, said that under the plan, every general practitioner in London would, in effect, be responsible for a $3.4 million budget.
â€œIt's like getting your waiter to manage a restaurant,â€ Mr. Furness said. â€œThe government is saying that G.P.'s know what the patient wants, just the way a waiter knows what you want to eat. But a waiter isn't necessarily any good at ordering stock, managing the premises, talking to the chef â€” why would they be? They're waiters.â€
But advocacy groups for general practitioners welcomed the proposals.
â€œOne of the great attractions of this is that it will be able to focus on what local people need,â€ said Prof. Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, which represents about 40,000 of the 50,000 general practitioners in the country. â€œThis is about clinicians taking responsibility for making these decisions.â€
Dr. Richard Vautrey, deputy chairman of the general practitioner committee at the British Medical Association, said general practitioners had long felt there were â€œfar too many bureaucratic hurdles to leapâ€ in the system, impeding communication. â€œIn many places, the communication between G.P.'s and consultants in hospitals has become fragmented and distant,â€ he said.
The plan would also require all National Health Service hospitals to become â€œfoundation trusts,â€ enterprises that are independent of health service control and accountable to an independent regulator (some hospitals currently operate in this fashion). This would result in a further loss of jobs, health care unions say, and also open the door to further privatization of the service.
Health Articles1. Itchy Manhood? Use Shea Butter And Vitamin E
Author: John Dugan
2. Porcelain Veneers: What Are They And Why You Might Need Them
3. Dental Professionals – Do You Need To Have A Trusting Relationship
4. Why You Will Need Emergency Dental Care
5. Things To Remember When Choosing The Best Dental Professional For Your Loved Ones
6. The Things To Reflect On Before Selecting A Dental Professional That Can Meet All Your Requirements
7. Don't Fear The Dentist - Beating Your Dental Stress
8. Indications Of A Bad Dentist
9. Best Tips To Choosing A Family Dental Expert
10. Regular Dental Cleaning - Why It Is Necessary
11. Top Five Reasons To Truly Have Periodic Dental Cleaning Done
12. Get Emergency Medical Support By Panchmukhi Air Ambulance Service In Mumbai
Author: Dr Mukesh Kumar
13. Why You May Consider Dental Dentures
14. Great Guidance For Denture Users
15. Teeth Extraction And Why It Is Important