Robert Baker: Do we really want patients to choose their healthcare?

There is a law of diminishing returns; piling in money will mean more of the same, only more costly

Share

The really odd thing about the NHS is how, despite the pillorying it has had over recent months, it remains so popular. Rather like the royal family, it doesn't seem to matter how many scandals emerge – ultimately people just can't imagine ourselves without it. Defying Wanless to suggest funding our last experiment in socialism other than by direct taxation makes you about as popular as Tom Paulin in a synagogue. The public, in recent opinion polls, have welcomed the money. But they have also, perversely, said that they do not expect anything to change.

The really odd thing about the NHS is how, despite the pillorying it has had over recent months, it remains so popular. Rather like the royal family, it doesn't seem to matter how many scandals emerge – ultimately people just can't imagine ourselves without it. Defying Wanless to suggest funding our last experiment in socialism other than by direct taxation makes you about as popular as Tom Paulin in a synagogue. The public, in recent opinion polls, have welcomed the money. But they have also, perversely, said that they do not expect anything to change.

Viewed from the shop floor as doctors, do we agree? Is this £40bn really about to give the British the best insurance scheme in the world? Doctors love to profess cynicism about such matters. "Not another meddling bureaucratic reform; you can't expect change to occur after so many years of underfunding; the money's a good thing, but can't they leave us alone to get on with our work?" are the three most frequent responses among my colleagues.

The engine for change seems to be greater patient choice – an end to the top-down, government-led bureaucracy of old. Seventy-five per cent of the budget is to be placed in the hands of primary care providers. But it isn't the same as the Tory internal market – definitely not, that was an abject failure.

It is superficially hard to argue with the idea of increased patient choice, and demand being driven from the bottom up. It is edifying to observe how first-rate services arise due to politicised and articulate patient demand – HIV care, for example. Except that putting choice in the hands of patients may not always be the right thing to do.

There are some circumstances, of course, where it is ideal. Doctors, on average, wash their hands after only 14 per cent of examinations. The correct figure should be 100 per cent. The one intervention that has been shown to increase that figure is getting patients to boss them into doing it. So far so good, but how about patient choice for MMR vaccination? Are parents really the right people to make a scientific public health decision?

Besides, what choices are we really giving people by allowing them to pick their own hospital? It isn't even Pepsi versus Coke, more Ovaltine versus Horlicks. Supposing we were to give patients choices about what the NHS should be for. This issue has been examined in something called the Oregon health priorities experiment. Voters in Oregon were asked to prioritise state-funded health care. The results were surprising. The top five priorities were " preventive" care, long-term nursing for the elderly, and critical care for children.

Only 15 per cent voted in favour of state funding for expensive interventions such as organ transplants. In 1987, Oregon's state legislature decided to stop paying for such transplants, except for the kidney and cornea, for Medicaid clients. Would we obtain similar responses in this country? If so, whole flagship NHS transplant departments would have to close down or seek private funding.

Besides, what is the NHS really good at? Until now, its great strength has been in providing adequate health care cheaply. People who work in it – and even external observers – often say the Americans spend about twice as much of their GDP on health care as we do, yet theirs is certainly not twice as good. At least we just about manage to provide cover for everyone, no matter how poor, even if rather sluggishly. There is inevitably a law of diminishing returns in health care, and piling in a load of money will probably mean more of the same, only more expensive.

Gordon Brown argues that the money doesn't matter, because a well-funded NHS will mean a healthier and more productive workforce, and the drain on the Exchequer will cancel out. There is almost no evidence to support this view. Healthcare systems may be justified on the basis of humanitarian help for the sick and disadvantaged, but not on economic grounds. Overall, your health is determined by genetics, relative wealth and social circumstances. Not by your GP or local hospital.

So what is the NHS bad at, and what should the money be put towards? The great issue confronting all Western health systems is one of quality. Recent, if contested, figures suggest that 70,000 people die each year in the NHS from medical errors that are probably avoidable. Two hundred thousand, or one in 10, are harmed in some way during an admission to hospital. In other words, the NHS is one of the nation's leading causes of premature death. This is partly due to staffing levels – particularly patient: nurse ratios. It is partly due to defective infection control – 25 per cent of patients who die in hospital do so with infections they acquired there. Furthermore, with a few honourable exceptions, there are hardly any universally accepted, standardised national protocols for care of most illnesses.

You could, usefully, deal with these problems, but my view is that Gordon Brown has shied at the wrong coconut. The obvious question is: "How can we ensure optimal health for the greatest possible number?" is something that may not have much to do with the NHS. Instead, what has been addressed is: "How can we deal with the NHS in the most popular way possible?" In other words: "How can we win the next election?"

The author is a doctor in a London teaching hospital

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Account Manager (Junior)

Negotiable: Clearwater People Solutions Ltd: Account Manager (Junior) Account ...

Solar Business Development Manager – M&A

£50000 - £60000 Per Annum: The Green Recruitment Company: The Green Recruitmen...

Accountant,Reconciliations,Bristol,Bank,£260/day

£200 - £260 per day + competitive: Orgtel: Accountant, Reconciliations, Bristo...

Test Analyst

£20000 - £30000 Per Annum: Clearwater People Solutions Ltd: An experienced Tes...

Day In a Page

Read Next
 

Voices in Danger: The innocent journalist kidnapped by Russian separatists for 'spying'

Anne Mortensen
A Bengal tiger captured by a camera trap in Nepal  

Save the tiger: The success of the Bengal tiger in Nepal shows you can make a difference

Harvey Day
A new Russian revolution: Cracks start to appear in Putin’s Kremlin power bloc

A new Russian revolution

Cracks start to appear in Putin’s Kremlin power bloc
Eugene de Kock: Apartheid’s sadistic killer that his country cannot forgive

Apartheid’s sadistic killer that his country cannot forgive

The debate rages in South Africa over whether Eugene de Kock should ever be released from jail
Standing my ground: If sitting is bad for your health, what happens when you stay on your feet for a whole month?

Standing my ground

If sitting is bad for your health, what happens when you stay on your feet for a whole month?
Commonwealth Games 2014: Dai Greene prays for chance to rebuild after injury agony

Greene prays for chance to rebuild after injury agony

Welsh hurdler was World, European and Commonwealth champion, but then the injuries crept in
Israel-Gaza conflict: Secret report helps Israelis to hide facts

Patrick Cockburn: Secret report helps Israel to hide facts

The slickness of Israel's spokesmen is rooted in directions set down by pollster Frank Luntz
The man who dared to go on holiday

The man who dared to go on holiday

New York's mayor has taken a vacation - in a nation that has still to enforce paid leave, it caused quite a stir, reports Rupert Cornwell
Best comedians: How the professionals go about their funny business, from Sarah Millican to Marcus Brigstocke

Best comedians: How the professionals go about their funny business

For all those wanting to know how stand-ups keep standing, here are some of the best moments
The Guest List 2014: Forget the Man Booker longlist, Literary Editor Katy Guest offers her alternative picks

The Guest List 2014

Forget the Man Booker longlist, Literary Editor Katy Guest offers her alternative picks
Jokes on Hollywood: 'With comedy film audiences shrinking, it’s time to move on'

Jokes on Hollywood

With comedy film audiences shrinking, it’s time to move on
It's the best of British art... but not all is on display

It's the best of British art... but not all is on display

Voted for by the British public, the artworks on Art Everywhere posters may be the only place where they can be seen
Critic claims 'I was the inspiration for Blanche DuBois'

Critic claims 'I was the inspiration for Blanche DuBois'

Blanche Marvin reveals how Tennessee Williams used her name and an off-the-cuff remark to create an iconic character
Sometimes it's hard to be a literary novelist

Sometimes it's hard to be a literary novelist

Websites offering your ebooks for nothing is only the latest disrespect the modern writer is subjected to, says DJ Taylor
Edinburgh Fringe 2014: The comedy highlights, from Bridget Christie to Jack Dee

Edinburgh Fringe 2014

The comedy highlights, from Bridget Christie to Jack Dee
Dame Jenny Abramsky: 'We have to rethink. If not, museums and parks will close'

Dame Jenny Abramsky: 'We have to rethink. If not, museums and parks will close'

The woman stepping down as chair of the Heritage Lottery Fund is worried