• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

PNHP

  • Home
  • Contact PNHP
  • Join PNHP
  • Donate
  • PNHP Store
  • About PNHP
    • Mission Statement
    • Local Chapters
    • Student chapters
    • Board of Directors
    • National Office Staff
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
  • About Single Payer
    • What is Single Payer?
    • How do we pay for it?
    • History of Health Reform
    • Conservative Case for Single Payer
    • FAQs
    • Información en EspaƱol
  • Take Action
    • The Medicare for All Act of 2025
    • Moral Injury and Distress
    • Medical Society Resolutions
    • Recruit Colleagues
    • Schedule a Grand Rounds
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Lobby Visits
  • Latest News
    • Sign up for e-alerts
    • Members in the news
    • Health Justice Monitor
    • Articles of Interest
    • Latest Research
    • For the Press
  • Reports & Proposals
    • Physicians’ Proposal
    • Medicare Advantage Equity Report
    • Medicaid Managed Care Report
    • Medicare Advantage Harms Report
    • Medicare Advantage Overpayments Report
    • Pharma Proposal
    • Kitchen Table Campaign
    • COVID-19 Response
  • Member Resources
    • 2025 Annual Meeting
    • Member Interest Groups (MIGs)
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Slideshows
    • Newsletter
    • Materials & Handouts
    • Webinars
    • Host a Screening
    • Events Calendar
    • Join or renew your membership
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

The reality of Britain’s reforms of its National Health Service

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

By Donald W. Light
The New York Times’ recent upbeat editorial about the radical reform of Britain’s National Health Service (ā€œHealth Care Reform, British Style,ā€ Aug. 4) has its facts wrong and biases showing. As anyone familiar with the NHS knows, it has not been ā€œbristling at any suggestion of changeā€ but rather has been absorbing large waves of change since 1990.
The new government’s reforms will eliminate layers of public bureaucracy piled on by the last two Labour governments, but only to install a new variation of commissioning that will require more private bureaucracy in the form of hired management companies. These companies will charge several times more for doing the same kind of paperwork and administration that the civil servants who are being laid off currently do.
Or perhaps the private management companies will hire back the laid-off men and women who, after all, know how things work, only now the workers will have no job security. There is plenty of precedent for this kind of scenario.
English primary care doctors have long had power over treatment decisions and referrals. To say the reforms will give them more power is misleading, especially since the reforms will now make those doctors responsible for contracting all hospital and specialty services. Everyone agrees this is a time-consuming, complex job for which doctors have no training or experience. If anything, the reforms will add a great bureaucratic burden on GPs so they have less time to provide personalized care to their patients.
The editorial suggests there is cause for worry that introducing for-profit management companies and American features will lead to patients’ interests being shortchanged. Then why endorse such a path? Indeed, overall administrative costs are likely to go up, and 500 little GP contracting groups will not have the clout to save money by reducing the waste built into the hospital-centered structure of specialty services.
In the zero-sum game of a fixed budget with more of it going to management contracts, services to less-affluent patients will have to be cut. Clinical and class inequalities are likely to increase. When, in the name of austerity, the NHS is called upon to save 20 percent of its budget, the new reforms will transfer more money to managed care corporations and leave less for patient care. In these ways, the NHS will become more American.
Donald W. Light
Princeton, N.J.
Donald W. Light is Lokey Visiting Professor at Stanford University and professor of comparative health care systems, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. He is the editor of the just-published book titled ā€œThe Risk of Prescription Drugsā€ from Columbia University Press.

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Archives

Footer

  • About PNHP
    • Mission Statement
    • Local Chapters
    • Student chapters
    • Board of Directors
    • National Office Staff
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
  • About Single Payer
    • What is Single Payer?
    • How do we pay for it?
    • History of Health Reform
    • Conservative Case for Single Payer
    • FAQs
    • Información en EspaƱol
  • Take Action
    • The Medicare for All Act of 2025
    • Moral Injury and Distress
    • Medical Society Resolutions
    • Recruit Colleagues
    • Schedule a Grand Rounds
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Lobby Visits
  • Latest News
    • Sign up for e-alerts
    • Members in the news
    • Health Justice Monitor
    • Articles of Interest
    • Latest Research
    • For the Press
  • Reports & Proposals
    • Physicians’ Proposal
    • Medicare Advantage Equity Report
    • Medicaid Managed Care Report
    • Medicare Advantage Harms Report
    • Medicare Advantage Overpayments Report
    • Pharma Proposal
    • Kitchen Table Campaign
    • COVID-19 Response
  • Member Resources
    • 2025 Annual Meeting
    • Member Interest Groups (MIGs)
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Slideshows
    • Newsletter
    • Materials & Handouts
    • Webinars
    • Host a Screening
    • Events Calendar
    • Join or renew your membership
©2025 PNHP