The new health secretary said the service has been “wrecked” by the Conservatives and launched an independent investigation.
He has appointed Lord Ara Darzi, a health minister in the last Labour government, to carry out the review and ordered officials to hand over whatever information is needed.
Writing in The Sun, Mr Streeting said: “Honesty is the best policy, and this report will provide patients, staff and myself with a full and frank assessment of the state of the NHS, warts and all.
“It’s going to take time to turn the NHS around - we were honest about that before the election.
"Sticking plasters won’t be enough to heal it. It will require fundamental reform.” It comes after Mr Streeting declared the NHS “broken” on his first day as Britain’s health secretary.
He went on to declare the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) is “no longer simply a public service department” but an “economic growth department”, because health and the economy are “inextricably linked” and improving the health of the nation can help to “drive the economic growth of the country”.
“That is a major shift in mindset,” he said. “It’s a rethinking of the role of the department.
“It also means ending the begging bowl culture, where the only interaction the Treasury has with DHSC is that we need more money for X, Y and Z.
“The starting point has got to be, ‘We will help you achieve your mission for growth and improve the prosperity and lives of everyone in this country by making sure that we are with you lockstep in driving growth’.”
[…]
Experts from the Nuffield Trust point out that Labour has inherited a waiting list for pre-planned hospital treatment of around 7.5 million in England – a 66% increase since the start of the pandemic.While progress has been made in some areas, such as cataract surgery, waits for some major surgeries have been slower to get back to pre-Covid levels, experts said.
the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) is “no longer simply a public service department” but an “economic growth department”, because health and the economy are “inextricably linked” and improving the health of the nation can help to “drive the economic growth of the country”.
“That is a major shift in mindset,” he said. “It’s a rethinking of the role of the department.
“It also means ending the begging bowl culture, where the only interaction the Treasury has with DHSC is that we need more money for X, Y and Z.
“The starting point has got to be, ‘We will help you achieve your mission for growth and improve the prosperity and lives of everyone in this country by making sure that we are with you lockstep in driving growth’.”
This is quite interesting, if I’m understanding it right. Historically, the focus has been ‘What can we do that’s cheap in the short-term?’, but switching it to ‘What can we do that will be promote growth in the long term?’ is a genuine shift that might make the NHS (and the state as a whole) cheaper and more effective. It’s at least worth a try, I think.
It also fits neatly with the overall aims of the government in terms of using the state to promote economic growth. Angela Rayner was making similar arguments about justice and mental health just before the election: that investing in those things now will save money in the long term. You can make the same argument about housing and green energy. This seems to be part of the same driving concept.
The global problem is that healthcare is costing significantly more as medicine progresses. Almost every Western health system is spending more as a % of GDP each year. The reason is that we are getting much better at treating what were previously very poor prognosis conditions. It wasn’t that long ago we had one not very effective treatment for multiple myeloma. If that didn’t work, there wasn’t much left to do. These days with have around 10+ regimens, and patients are living for much longer and going through 3, 4, 5+ types of treatment before nothing further can be done. These treatments cost up to £50k/month. But they also cost more from your doctor - who now needs to be a superspecialist and spend more time working out exactly how best to sequence your treatment, and you also need more specialist nurse involvement, and more time from day unit nurses to deliver the treatment.
I really don’t believe private is the answer. Someone here mentioned Germany has a private system. A quick look on wikipedia shows we spent $4188-5493/capita from 2018-2022, Germany spent $6290-8011 for the same time period - they spend 45.8% more than the UK. I would rather we first try matching our spending with a system we wish to emulate rather than privatise first.
The fact that I can’t get an appointment at my local GP or that it is shut on weekends, or that I can’t see a dentist locally without paying through the nose, or have to wait hours with my daughter at A&E, or that when I get vaccinated for a recent holiday I get handed a piece of paper and am told to keep it safe because in ten years time you might be asked again if you had this vaccination is a huge cause of concern.
The NHS works for a lot of people and when it does it’s great 👍. But it doesn’t work for a large number of people and when it doesn’t that sucks 😞. I welcome Streeting’s desire to improve things but I can’t see any real progress being made until we stop treating it like a religion.
An independent review is about to find out the the NHS should be privatised…
progress has been made in some areas, such as cataract surgery
That’s because cataract surgery is quick and easy and has few complications. The private sector hoovers them all up, and consequently their stats look amazing relative to the difficult stuff the NHS is left with.
the sooner this labour government falls and collapses the better
‘We will help you achieve your mission for growth and improve the prosperity and lives of everyone in this country by making sure that we are with you lockstep in driving growth’
Call me a bleeding-heart socialist, but I’m pretty sure the goal of a heal department should be people’s well being, not the economy.
The nation’s health is affecting the economy massively. Fixing the NHS will have massive benefits to the economy even if they don’t intentionally set out to do that. It’s also a good way to sell the reforms.
The Tories wanted to privatise sick notes instead of getting people the care they needed to avoid being off work.
More people working also means more tax income.
Naturally, a socialist misses how much the economy and the individual wellbeing of the citizens are inextricably linked.
all things under the sun must serve mammon
Call me a bleeding-heart socialist
You’re a bleeding-heart socialist, as am I.
The wording doesn’t sit comfortably with me but I remember an old tutor’s advice: if you are making a grant application for a project, make sure it is about the environment.
So, as cynical as it may feel, perhaps the best way to frame investing in the NHS is to give it an economic spin - a healthier population will be more productive. A lot of people would like to get back to work but their physical and/or mental health is preventing this.
I really want to ascribe good intentions to this, but I just can’t with Streeting. I don’t think everything Labour has said is insincere, e.g. I think their commitment to ‘ending the culture wars’ is genuine. But Streeting has taken £175K in donations from private health firms and spent a lot of the campaign talking about the need for increasing the role of the private sector in the NHS, so I can’t help but question his motives.
Yeah, of all the appointments, he’s the one that concerns me the most.
“Let’s give the NHS more money!” is great but if the rest of the sentence is “so my rich mates can syphon it all off” then that’s not so great.
Well, private healthcare works really well in Germany. I’d love to see Britain switching to a similar style of healthcare.
Had a quick look on Wikipedia - Germany spends $8011/capita versus $5493 in the UK, a 45.8% higher amount. Rather than suggest we pass our money through a profit-focussed middleman, like we do for car insurance, why don’t we try matching our spending first?
I’d recommend you to learn about Bismark model before arguing. Germans pay more per capita, sure, but their healthcare also includes full dental care and plenty of strategic excess to ensure that everyone gets treatment as soon as possible. That’s how Germany was able to support the UK and the rest of Europe with ventilators during the pandemic.
Please don’t tell me what I need to learn about before arguing, especially if your point doesn’t directly address mine. The two views are:
- A different system will result in a better service
- More resources will result in a better service
I know which of those two I would investigate first.
Also an observation about language and how we frame things - “strategic excess” of the German system == “inefficiency” in the NHS. I’m not arguing one way or another here, but the way we use language can greatly affect the public discourse on the subject.
Came here to make a similar comment
this:
He went on to declare the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) is “no longer simply a public service department” but an “economic growth department”, because health and the economy are “inextricably linked” and improving the health of the nation can help to “drive the economic growth of the country”.
Says it all really.
Neoliberals gonna neolib…
