The National Health Service, which is a government run public health care enterprise, is an important institution in Britain. Both the Tory party and the New Labour Party have competed to claim the NHS as their own and no election campaign in Britain is without numerous references to the benefits offered by the NHS. While some of the claims made by politicians might be overstated and exaggerated, it is indeed true that the NHS is an indispensible and integral part of the lives of British citizens. Several public opinion polls also show that people living in the UK are generally happy and appreciative of the services offered by the NHS. There are good reasons why this is so. For example, the NHS provides free healthcare service to all citizens at ‘point of delivery, and made available on the basis of need and not on the ability to pay” (Stewart, 2008). In the years before its creation, nearly half the general population could not avail of basic healthcare. Back then, access to basic healthcare was a matter of social class and the ability to pay. But all that changed for good with the unveiling of NHS in the year 1948. Going by the popularity and public opinion polls alone, one would be led to believe that it is a flawless system. But the situation is not as clear cut as that, for despite its overall popularity and its penetration into the collective consciousness of people in Britain; the NHS can be further improved. The rest of this essay will delve deeper into such aspects of the NHS as its structure, funding and regulations pertaining to it and make an inference as to its strengths, weaknesses as well as identifying areas for improvement.
Beginning with the organizational structure of the NHS, it is essentially an umbrella organization that comprises four regional branches, namely NHS (England), NHS Scotland, Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland and NHS Wales. The funding for all these organizations comes from a common source, namely the tax-payer money of residents of UK, although they operate to an extent as autonomous institutions. In other words, the top executives of these four organizations take decisions independently for day to day operations although they abide by broader regulatory directives applicable to the UK region as a whole. Regulations are an important aspect of the functioning of the NHS, for without it exploitation by private vested interests is likely to happen. Given that the notion of access to free healthcare is close to the heart of the British and undermining this would prove politically imprudent, both the Tory and New Labour leadership have been very careful in making amendments to the original provisions of the universal healthcare act. For example, during the reign of Margaret Thatcher, there was a push toward greater privatization of erstwhile public services including the NHS, British Rail and Gasoline services (Stewart, 2008). But despite successes in other areas, the Thatcher government could not tinker with core elements of NHS. For example, according to Paul Wilby, an expert on the history and development of NHS, there has been some noticeable changes to the organizational structure to the NHS since the Thatcher era:
“There has been a process of attrition. Increasingly, the least integrated elements of healthcare have been subject to market forces including the privatization of both the funding and the delivery. For example, NHS dental care, optical care and long-term care services have been eroded and removed from overall entitlement the result is enormous inequities in access and coverage. Although many of the services were provided in less than ideal forms – for example, the long stay institutions for people with mental illness and people with learning disabilities and the old were relics of the Victorian era – lack of funding for these services combined with lack of political will has resulted in less coverage than there was before and more of the burden and responsibility falling to the individual.” (Wilby, 2008)
Hence, the widespread popularity of the NHS could actually hide some of its flaws as mentioned above. While prior to the Thatcher era the major problem confronting the organization is funding, the nature of the problem underwent a transformation under the privatization thrust of the Thatcher government. And if not for the popular sentimentality attached to the NHS, greater changes might have come about in the structure and functioning of the organization. Different governments in the last thirty years took care to see to it that their privatization effort does not undermine their electoral prospects. As a result, the generous provisions under the universal healthcare act (which was instituted after the Second World War) could only be dismantled one small step at a time starting in the 1970s. Firstly there were management reforms, which turned over the administration of the NHS from healthcare professionals to specialist managers who had little exposure and understanding of health services. Following this, the number of staff falling under low-pay category were increased and handed contracts as opposed to permanent employment (Wilby, 2008). The contracted staff now included cleaners, caterers and laundry staff. At the same time the budgetary allocation for the NHS was not increased, leading to growing discontent among the staff and general public alike. It was at this juncture that the Private Finance Initiative was introduced, which entailed a new form of private ownership of hospital capital, including such fixed assets as buildings and land. Simultaneously, with the introduction of internal markets that required contracts between components of NHS, the various NHS departments began to display a degree of autonomy in their daily operations. So the NHS dismantled the policy of geographic planning (Baggott, 2007).
This is the backdrop that leads up to the prevailing structure and operation of the NHS. In this context, it is an accurate assessment to state that the core values and principles adopted by the NHS leadership today is quite different from the stated founding values when it was first instituted in 1948. From being a totally public sector funded and managed enterprise, the NHS has today is integrated into the private capitalist economy. While this transition has made the NHS more efficient and streamlined, it has lost its humane and caring touch. When one studies the structure and funding of the NHS today, it is obvious that terms such as ‘partnership’, ‘private finance’ and ‘efficiency’ have come to replace erstwhile core values of ‘service’, ‘care’ and ‘compassion’ (Simmons, 2009). Both the Tory leadership under Margaret Thatcher and later the New Labour policies under Tony Blair have brought about a new feel and perspective to this important institution. But this transformation has not been an insulated process, for it is just one manifestation of a broader shift in domestic policy adopted by both the Tory and New Labour parties. This emphasis on ‘partnership’ and ‘private finance’ is furthered by parallel initiative pertaining to capital investment by state bodies in the UK. The existing channels of funding and the structure of the organization is very much a product of such initiatives as the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and Public Private Partnerships (PPP). According to the UK Treasury (2000) PFI/PPP offers modern governance and modern procurement and has made the NHS a more efficient organization. Further,
“PPP involves the introduction of private sector ownership in state activities–ranging from partnership agreements to full transfer of assets–co-operation of private sector firms in ‘exploiting the commercial potential of government assets’ and the PFI. PFI refers to the contracting by state bodies with private sector firms or consortia for the construction and maintenance of capital assets. Examples of PFI include infrastructure projects, such as the projected extensions to the London underground and recent hospital and school building programs. PFI contracts can be characterized by the acronym DBOO–design, build, own, and operate. Private firms raise the necessary finance to construct the contracted capital project, retain possession of property rights to those assets on the completion of construction, and responsibility for maintaining those assets. This represents a more significant incursion by the private sector into those activities than occurred under the competitive tendering initiative of the 1980s, where many tendered services remained in-house.” (Simmons, 2009)
Even the funding of NHS has undergone remarkable change from the institution’s early days. The infusion of private funds has accelerated in the last decade, and since the inception of the New Labour government in the year 1997, 85 percent of major NHS capital projects have been funded through the PFI mechanism. This situation might distort the priorities of the NHS “towards large-scale ventures, such as the construction and maintenance of new acute hospitals, at the expense of smaller schemes in the primary and mental health sectors, since the latter may be less attractive to private financiers than the former” (Mcmaster, 2002). Clearly the combination of PPP/PFI and further reform to the structure and procedures of health care provision in the NHS would lead to significant change within the institution. This change is triggered in part by the greater prominence of health economics within the corpus of mainstream economic theory that also underpins the economics of the so-called ‘third way’”. (Mcmaster, 2002)
In the last twenty odd years, the NHS has also become a more equitable employer, in terms of hiring people from various nationalities and ethnic backgrounds, which should count as a big positive for the institution’s image. For example, in recent decades, skilled immigrant labour has become the backbone of the National Health Services organization. Each year, the number of skilled and experienced doctors, nurses and other specialist hospital staff that join the NHS and contribute to its success come from abroad. Although politicians of all parties claim the NHS to be a uniquely British institution, its persistent success is made possible by its multi-ethnic and multi-cultural staff members. Many of the émigré healthcare professionals that join the NHS eventually take British citizenship and eventually start to recognize themselves as British. To elaborate further, doctors from India constitute a major chunk of foreign nationals in NHS. And their growing presence in Britain has only enriched the existing traditions and introduced newer ones. Hence it is accurate to say that changes made to the immigration policy, especially under the Labour rule of last 13 years has only enhanced the multi-cultural and egalitarian image of the NHS, boosting its overall appeal. (Merali, 2006)
Looking ahead to the future, there is no guarantee that the NHS will continue to thrive as it did in the past. Despite the reassuring rhetoric of the New Labour leadership, the Conservative Party has point out several drawbacks in the present system. These include “the lack of a family doctor service, inefficient long-term care services, and diminished priority for cancer patients”, etc (Sheaff, 2002). In the same vein, the King’s Fund report of March 2004 has criticized the Tony Blair government for not being able to meet expectations on hospice care, patient waiting times and patient choices. Given that the population in the UK is constantly aging, it is imperative that some innovative measure is taken to address this problem. As it is, “only the neediest elderly will receive publicly-funded assistance at home; as those with ‘mild to moderate needs’ must rely on alternative resources” (Merali, 2006). In the meantime, there is a growing sense of unease in the general population. In the same King’s Fund report, persistent problems relating to funding, rising costs, etc is also mentioned. Due to these persistent problems, the quality of NHS has not improved noticeably under the New Labour leadership. The current debate surrounding the NHS will prove crucial for not just the inhabitants of the UK but also for public healthcare systems all across the world. Possibly, realizing that decentralization and market orientation is a crucial factor, the Labour leadership has successfully introduced PFI as a way of easing pressure on government coffers while at the same time bring about significant improvement in the quality of health care (Sheaff, 2002). But as of date, the PFI has not met its full potential because the British citizenry continues to depend upon public health care services. Interestingly, it is the robust services sector that makes the NHS look off-colour, while at the same time making nationalized healthcare systems in other European nations look more attractive and efficient. But in reality, the NHS is not far behind any other nationalized healthcare system in Europe, including that of France. At this point in time, the UK faces a tough dilemma, and it has to choose between two alternatives. It has to either “maintain publicly funded health care and suffer a dampened economy, or take a chance on US-style private health care and have a more competitive economy” (Gray & Harrison, 2004). But for the British electorate, neither option is easy to adopt.
And finally, the Labour government will do well to heed to the criticisms raised by the Conservative opposition with regard to the present state of NHS. As the Tories rightly contend,
“Labour’s style of health care administration is far too centralized and bureaucratic, a major problem given Britain’s aging population and growing rate of health care innovation. An aging population will increase demand for health care, and a lack of proper competition will make it difficult for hospitals to bring in new, more efficient technology. An inflexible, centralized system simply cannot handle this situation. To counter Labour’s claims of having added 100,000 new doctors and nurses since 1997, the Conservatives declare that a record 30,000 nurses leave the NHS each year. As a result, the Conservatives propose to decentralize and privatize the health sector. These measures, both vital in keeping pace with the global economy, would allow centralized health systems more flexibility to improve quality and patient satisfaction.” (Button & Roberts, 2007)
References:
Baggott, R. (2007) Understanding Health Policy. Bristol : Policy.
Button, W. J., & Roberts, G. (2007). Communication, Clinical Directorates, and the Corporate NHS. , 9(2), 141-162.
Degeling, P and others (2003) Medicine, Management, And Modernisation: A “Danse Macabre”? BMJ British Medical Journal. Vol. 326, No. 7390 (Mar. 22, 2003), pp. 649-652
Doyal, Len and Doyal, Lesley (1999) The British National Health Service: a tarnished MoralVision? Health Care Analysis. Volume 7 Number 4, December 1999. Pages 363-376
Gray, A and Harrison, S. (eds.) (2004) Governing Medicine : theory and practice. Maidenhead : Open University Press.
Luna, J. (2006). Falling Sick: Britain’s National Health Service. Harvard International Review, 28(2), 11+.
Mcmaster, D. R. (2002). A Socio-Instutionalist Critique of the 1990s’ Reforms of the United Kingdom’s National Health Service. Review of Social Economy, 60(3), 403+.
Merali, F. (2006) Developing an explicit strategy towards social responsibility in the NHS: A case for including NHS managers in this strategy. Journal of health organisation and management. Volume 20. Number 4. Pages 309-324
Simmons, R. and others (eds) (2009) The consumer in public services: choices, values and difference. Policy Press DawsonEra ebook
National Health Service a Godsend to People. (2007, January 24). The Journal (Newcastle, England), p. 10.
Nhs, Inc. the Accelerating Marketization of the Uk’s National Health Service. (2004, October). Multinational Monitor, 25, 25+.
Sheaff, R. (2002). Responsive Healthcare: Marketing for a Public Service. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Stewart, J. (2008). The Political Economy of the British National Health Service, 1945-1975: Opportunities and Constraints?. Medical History, 52(4), 453+.
Wall, A., & Owen, B. (2002). Health Policy. London: Routledge.
Wilby, P. (2008, April 7). The Unhealthy Choice: Once the National Health Service Put Equality First. New Statesman, 137, 16.