That i agree with, but it goes further and deeper than that. You cant reform the NHS without reforming how public entities do business.
There’s two extremes to this. Bring everything completely into the public domain or the complete opposite, privatise it. Both scenarios however need more freedom and measures that make procurement far easier, quicker and better value.
There’s difficulties with each extreme, particularly the fully private one. I’d say.
When Cameron was on the electoral trail in 2010 he promised there would be no top down reorganisation if the NHS. One of the first things the Tories did in power was to set about a top down reorganisation of the NHS.
NHS reform, especially under the Tories, has been more about keeping the service in a continual state of confusion and demoralisation. It fits in the Tory agenda of running down the NHS and driving increased privatisation.
I agree that there needs to be reform of the NHS, especially around staffing (I’ve heard a lot of stories about the shit you can pull in the NHS if you don’t really fancy going to work) but it needs to be led by practitioners, not politicians.
Did you see Sir Tom Hunter on question time last night?
He said for years he’s gone to businesses with problems, and in the first instance spoken to the foot soldier workforce.
Then sacked/replaced the management.
Perhaps the NHS is top heavy?
It makes complete sense if the management is the issue.
The question is, is the NHS top-heavy, or just not staffed with the right people, or the victim of too much political meddling, or some mixture of any combination of these and other factors?
Pretty sure the government have appointed someone to conduct a review of the NHS though.