LABOUR and the Conservatives argue endlessly about whether the NHS in England is being privatised but, according to the World Health Organisation definition, there is no doubt!
Both parties have contributed to this: the Blair government, through the introduction of PFI and the Con-LibDem coalition through their Health and Social Care Act (HSCA), which allowed all NHS contracts to be put out to competitive tender.
This turned the NHS in England into a healthcare “market” and within three years hospital trusts have accumulated £2.5 billion of debt, as money haemorrhaged from frontline care to generate profits for companies running a growing share of services.
Now there is concern that all four UK health services face the threat of a UK-US trade deal. American companies can already bid for NHS contracts, but it is not Trump who could turn the NHS in England into an insurance-based system. There are at least 20 senior Tories who have espoused this policy at one time and the Health Secretary Matt Hancock has ties to the Institute of Economic Affairs which constantly lobbies for it.
READ MORE: Labour expose UK's ‘secret agenda’ to put NHS on the table in US trade talks
Such a payment-based system is already creeping into the NHS in England as financial pressures have led to the rationing of common operations, such as joint replacements and cataract surgery, using what the Royal College says are unjustifiably high symptom thresholds. Patients who are refused can pay for treatment through the NHS My Choice system as the HSCA now allows NHS hospitals in England to make up to 49% of their income from paying patients (up from 2%).
Not only is this creating a two-tier health system in England, it is undermining the basic premise of the NHS. If the patient needs an operation, the NHS should provide it without charge. If they do not, it should not be sold to them simply to generate hospital income!
While Matt Hancock claims neither health services nor pharmaceuticals will be included in any US deal, President Trump and his officials have made clear that one condition will be to remove what they consider “anti-market” practices, such as the cost-effectiveness assessments of new drugs carried out by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence or the Scottish Medicines Consortium.
They have held discussions on extending patents, thus delaying the introduction of cheaper “generic” copies. It is estimated these changes could more than double drug costs, putting huge strain on budgets.
Such trade deals also pose a threat to public health, as policies such as the smoking ban could be challenged through an Investor State Dispute Settlement system if they reduce a private company’s profit. This has been seen previously when the Australian government were sued by US tobacco for introducing plain cigarette packaging. Even the cost of defending such cases can deter governments from making necessary public policy to tackle public health problems.
If re-elected to Westminster, I and my SNP colleagues will be seeking cross-party support for a Bill to explicitly exclude all aspects of health from future trade deals and ensure that devolved governments can protect their public services.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel