Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Now It's Britain's Turn for a Health Care Reform Battle

5 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
LONDON -- At the height of last summer's heated debate over health care reform, the British National Health Service came under fire from those anxious about the prospect of a "public option" in the United States. For many conservatives, the NHS was the very embodiment of the sort of socialized medicine championed by many politicians and interest groups on the left (including, at times, President Obama himself).

How ironic, then, that barely a year later, the Brits are engaged in a health care reform battle of their own. At the heart of the debate is a proposal by the U.K.'s Conservative Party-led coalition government to fundamentally restructure the NHS so as to introduce greater choice and competition. And the government is fighting a war of words against a loose coalition of opposition politicians, journalists and NHS stakeholders, all of whom are worried about reducing the state's role in health-care delivery.

health care reformBilled in some arenas as "the biggest shake-up of the NHS in decades," the initiative is decidedly un-revolutionary in one respect: The NHS will remain available on the basis of need, free at the point of use and funded through tax revenues. In other words -- and in marked contrast to the U.S. -- universally available, publicly funded health care will still be the norm in the U.K. Equally significant, and consistent with a pledge Prime Minister David Cameron made during his election campaign, the NHS budget will be "ring-fenced" from budget cuts, even while other policy areas face reductions of up to 40 percent.

Within that overall financing framework, however, there are three significant changes afoot. The first will abolish two layers of bureaucracy and devolve authority over health care commissioning to general practitioners (GPs), who will take over the purchasing of care. Second, the private sector will be given greater scope to compete with the public sector to provide services to those doctors. Finally, an independent, non-governmental economic regulator will be put in place to ensure that such competition is fair.

In short, there will be less bureaucracy, greater competition and newly independent regulation over the next four years as these reforms take hold. There are also a number of subsidiary changes that reinforce this market ethos, including greater patient choice in the selection of doctors and hospitals, abolishing the cap on private-patient income at NHS hospitals, greater financial and operational autonomy in the way hospitals are run and the shuttering of numerous regulatory bodies in favor of a more streamlined approach.

Just how "revolutionary" these ideas are is open to interpretation. It's certainly true that some version of markets (or "quasi-markets," as they are referred to in the trade) has been around since the early 1990s, across Conservative and Labour governments alike. In that sense, as Julian Le Grand, a professor of social policy at the London School of Economics and former senior policy adviser to Tony Blair, puts it, these reforms are more "evolutionary than revolutionary." But according to Chris Ham, chief executive of the King's Fund, an independent health policy research center in London, "No government has been as bold as we're seeing now."

Why is it so bold? Well, let's take doctors, who will be at the heart at the British health care delivery system. The new plan does away with 10 Strategic Health Authorities, which currently oversee regional planning for the NHS, and also abolishes 150 primary care trusts that currently commission health care budgets. In their stead, Britain's 35,000 GPs would be obliged to band together by 2013 in groups of roughly 50. The 500-600 or so "consortia" that emerge from this framework will then commission treatments from hospitals on behalf of patients. Of particular note, GPs will be in charge of administering 80 percent of the NHS budget -- some 80 billion pounds (approximately $127 billion). The basic idea, as Le Grand put it to me, is that "the person who makes decisions about the allocation of budgets should also be the budget holder."

The second major prong of the reform initiative allows "any willing provider" -- private or public -- to bid for NHS contracts. It also compels hospitals to be much more upfront about their performance. Armed with information about, say, which hospital in London has the best record on treating strokes, the idea is that patients will move from a system based on bureaucratic targets (e.g. nationally mandated waiting times) to one based on outputs. More choice and more suppliers are thought to represent a fundamental change in orientation within the NHS, away from a norm of "collaboration," as one hospital administrator put it to me privately, and "towards a norm of competition."

Not everyone buys that any of this is all that novel. Patrick Dunleavy, a professor of political science and public policy at the London School of Economics, dismisses the idea that this reform initiative is anywhere near as bold as the press is making it out to be. He points out that the NHS gets reorganized every two-three years, and the latest initiative amounts to nothing more than "moving deck chairs around." By way of example, he points to the devolution of authority away from the Primary Care Trusts towards the GP consortia: "So you're getting rid of 150 bodies and replacing them with 630? I don't see how you're changing much except pushing the numbers up." For Dunleavy, this is instead one giant exercise in bureaucratic reorganization.

However radical this reform agenda is or is not, the question is whether any of it will work. And here, there is a fair amount of skepticism, even among those, like Ham and Le Grand, who think that the reform is moving the country in the right direction.

First of all, are GPs up to the task at hand? They're about to inherit an 80 billion pound budget. That's a whole lot of money to turn over to a bunch of family doctors. Ham, who's studied physician-led medical services in the United States, is generally supportive of the concept, but also emphasizes that it can only work if GPs are motivated and competent.

Commissioning will require managerial, negotiating and data-analysis skills that many GPs neither possess nor signed up for when they trained to become doctors. Moreover, Dunleavy is not at all convinced that a bunch of "little guys" are going to negotiate better contracts than a few larger players. "It's like saying, 'Let's have all our contracting done by family shops instead of by big supermarkets,' " Dunleavy observes. "The whole point is to have expert fire power."

A related issue is the perennial political science question: "Who guards the guardians?" Even assuming that GPs can hit the ground running with sound negotiating skills, who's going to ensure that they are managing their budgets well? To be sure, some quality control will be secured through the market itself, insofar as the new system will enable patients to leave their GPs if they don't like the service provision (something that's not possible under the current system, where GPs are geographically assigned).

But Le Grand isn't certain that "the threat of exit" will be powerful enough to ward off an incentive for doctors to under-treat, particularly when you've just eliminated two layers of bureaucratic oversight. And even if most GPs are honest, Ham is skeptical that the government's proposed independent commissioning board will be able to hold 500-600 GP consortia accountable at once.

Ham also worries about what he calls a gap in "system leadership" to address broader, strategic planning questions confronting the U.K. in health care right now. London is famous, for example, for its mismanagement of acute hospital care. (By way of example, 25 percent of patients in "acute" hospital beds don't need to be there.) But without the Strategic Health Authorities, it's not clear who will decide, for example, which hospitals in a given region should have maternity wards and which should not. It's also an open question whether the government, and its newly empowered economic regulatory agency, will actually pull the trigger when (and if) it emerges that certain public hospitals just can't cut it in a more competitive environment.

Which brings us to politics. In theory, allowing greater competition from the private sector will result in an innovative model of service that will in turn pressure public organizations to do a better job. In practice, however, and as Chris Ham points out, there's a "zero-sum quality to this competition, because it takes place within the context of a fixed budget." Because if more money flows to new market entrants, by definition less money will flow to existing health care providers. And that may bring with it staff reductions and/or budget cuts to the NHS. "That might be unpopular and difficult to explain politically," Ham points out. "Think of the MP [member of parliament] who has to close down a local hospital."

It's already clear that the British Medical Association -- the trade union for doctors in the U.K. -- is not wild about the market reform agenda. Ham thinks that GPs alone may block effective implementation unless they are given something sufficiently attractive in exchange for the new responsibilities that now await them. Moreover, Patrick Dunleavy points out that by 2012 -- (because of a two-year pay freeze at the NHS) -- every NHS worker will be poorer by 10 percent in salary. If you add that to the general spending cuts contemplated by the current government, public sector unions will be "hopping mad by 2012 and 10 percent poorer."

Ham is also concerned about the transition period, although less for political reasons than for administrative ones. "It's easy to write a scenario where over the next 12-18 months, a series of problems arise around funding, balancing budgets, short waiting times, performance deteriorates and creates problems before a new structure is in place," he warns. Dunleavy is almost certain that this will happen and kill off the reform in the process. And then, in his opinion, the whole thing will amount to nothing more than "a huge waste of time."

In this sense, however different the American and British health care reform initiatives are on the ground, they share this crucial similarity. Will the changes envisioned by each government deliver -- and deliver fast enough -- to confer benefits before the inevitable opposition and/or administrative missteps kick in? Or will both reform programs die before they have a chance to prove themselves?

Only time will tell.

Follow Delia on Twitter.

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.


Filter by:

Anyone who thinks "govt sponsored health care" is free in all those countries is foolish. The citizens all pay for it with Value Added Taxes on every other item they buy. The average tax on items in countries with govt sponsored health care is over 19%! So everytime you buy a drink or a towel or pay your mortgage, just add 19% in taxes to the price! Our current givt is already talking about the need for a VAT. Something the U.S. has NEVER had. If people want to know "How will this effect me?" Just add those taxes onto every purchase you make. Then try to determine if the cost of healthcare is anywhere near 19% of your salary!

September 30 2010 at 8:50 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

We can do it smarter and better.

September 29 2010 at 8:53 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

It is starting to make sense why the only good thing the former soviet union produced was Vodka. The people had an incentive to make it good so they could forget about how bad everthing else was.

September 29 2010 at 6:24 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply

If people would take better care of themselves we would not have the health care fiasco we have now. Ever see what people put in their shopping carts at the grocery store?

September 29 2010 at 4:00 PM Report abuse -8 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to tplapper's comment

Don't worry, soon it will be illegal to produce many foods and it will be nearly impossible for us to produce our own either. Plus the food police are already imposing their tyranny on us with new regulation. Maybe the government could impose restrictions on how food stamps are used to purchase sode, tobacco, prepared foods, candy, junk food etc. You follow a food stamp user in a checkout line and you see them making the worst choices. The government dependant mentality makes people so lazy they can't even make an effort to slap their own hamburger patties together or buy raw chicken instead of TV dinners.

September 29 2010 at 4:10 PM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply

Obama has never supported socialized medicine. And the simple fact is that every industrialized democracy on the planet except the United States has government sponsored health care for all. And as long as we're talking about England, I have a number of friends who maintain dual citizenship, just to keep their British health care. Anyone who believes that old trope that we have "the best health care in the world" is buying into the insurance industry's shell game.

September 29 2010 at 3:20 PM Report abuse -3 rate up rate down Reply

I have a friend that lives in London . He purchased private insurance for his family . He said anybody that could possibly afford it and all politicians and celebrities have private insurance because they get better care that way. So actually only people that can't afford insurance are on the free government plan .Actually I don't understand this article and what reform they are debating .

September 29 2010 at 3:10 PM Report abuse +6 rate up rate down Reply

why is it that so many LIbs here and around the world think the only way for the have nots to have something is to take from the haves. Why not implement economic policies that uplift everyone like Reagan did instead of policies that steal from one class of people and bring everyone down? There is no reason why Mexico should not be on experiencing the same economic prosperity as the US and Canada ( used to have ) except for the poor form of government and economic policies. That goes for the rest of the world too. Why is the only thing BHO can think to do is tear down the successful and redistribute the results of their hard work, education, wise choices, and personal discipline. Money is not spread out on a pie chart of finite dollars like the LIbs try to deceive you with. In a free market with a growing economy there is a constantly growing opportunity for increased value and increased productivity.

September 29 2010 at 2:57 PM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE! Not the survival of the fittest, not every man (person) for him self.

September 29 2010 at 2:42 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Trigger's comment


September 29 2010 at 4:05 PM Report abuse +5 rate up rate down Reply

To sum it up, after 20 or so years of "free health care" in the E.U. most have decided that its too expensive to be sustainable for the individual. I have a friend who lives in Germany where they have free health care and she says its great but costs alot. She will also tell you that you had better hope you never need to use it.

September 29 2010 at 2:12 PM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply

Have a hangup with health insurance companies? Pay for your own health care, then. That will eliminate your helping to pay those "hundreds of millions" of executives' pay!

September 29 2010 at 1:08 PM Report abuse -3 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>