Over 500 people attended an online rally about the takeover of GP practices by the American health insurance corporation, Centene, and the government’s privatisation agenda for the NHS.
Watch the rally – link below
Over 500 people attended an online rally about the takeover of GP practices by the American health insurance corporation, Centene, and the government’s privatisation agenda for the NHS.
Watch the rally – link below
Munira Mirza heading up group meeting ‘daily or weekly’ to plan ‘radical NHS shakeup’. Open Democracy 19.11.20
Boris Johnson’s government has for the first time confirmed the existence of a prime ministerial task force which is reportedly planning a “radical shake-up of the NHS”.
Freedom of Information disclosures to openDemocracy show the new “No.10 Health and Social Care Taskforce” reports to a Steering Group chaired by Munira Mirza, the influential head of Boris Johnson’s policy unit, and that it “met weekly” from July to September with a further meeting in October.
Mirza, a political appointee who previously worked for Johnson when he was London mayor, has no background or policy experience in health.
The disclosures also reveal that whilst some Department of Health officials do attend the task force, it is led by four senior civil servants based at the Treasury, and none of whom are from the Department of Health.
The government has not published any information about the task force’s existence, work, terms of reference or membership – and has refused to answer questions about the nature of its work.
However in July, The Guardian reported that Boris Johnson was planning a “radical and politically risky reorganisation of the NHS” – in response to “frustration” with the NHS’s performance during the COVID crisis.
And in September, the Financial Times reported that inside sources had revealed an interdepartmental health task force with a wide remit, “determining what the health service’s goals should be”.
The government has previously claimed that rumours regarding the work of the task force are “pure speculation,” and did not even formally confirm its existence, insisting that instead: “As has been the case throughout the pandemic, our focus is on protecting the public, controlling the spread of the virus, and saving lives.”
Not only is the group now confirmed to exist, but Mirza’s leading role and the lack of leaders from the Department of Health suggest that its work is politically focused.
Jackie Applebee, Chair of Doctors in Unite, told openDemocracy, “It is shocking that people with no background in health are meeting regularly to determine the future of health and social care. COVID-19 has surely shown us that putting people with no health experience in charge of the NHS is a disaster.”
Meanwhile Tamasin Cave, a lobbying expert, has called Mirza “a political hire who is unqualified to mess around with the NHS”. She also questioned the timing: “Why are they doing this now, given how much the NHS – and the country – has on its plate already?”
The revelations come as concerns are mounting about post-COVID pressures on the NHS.
Kailash Chand, former deputy chair of the British Medical Association, told openDemocracy. “The waiting lists have built up to an awful level, and they’ll use that as an excuse to bring the private sector in, as they did under the previous Labour government.”
He described Boris Johnson as “dangerous” and having “no faith in public services.”
In their Freedom of Information responses, the Department of Health, the Treasury and Number 10 have all denied having a full record of who has been attending the task force and steering group meetings.
Martin McKee, professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, has criticised the government’s secretive approach as “the worst possible way to design a major reform.”
“Secrecy encourages groupthink. The government rightly stresses the importance of public and patient involvement and co-production with users when designing new models of care. It is bizarre to reject these ideas for the really big decisions.”
What today’s disclosures do show is that the task force’s civil service policy lead is Adrian Masters. An alumnus of the management consultancy McKinsey, Masters played a key role in shaping the last major piece of NHS legislation, the 2012 Health and Social Care Act.
McKinsey was reported to have drafted large parts of that bill, which was criticised as enabling increased fragmentation and private sector outsourcing of large parts of the NHS.
The task force also includes William Warr: Johnson’s health advisor and a former lobbyist at the firm of Lynton Crosby, who masterminded numerous Conservative Party election campaigns and Johnson’s successful 2008 London mayoral bid.
Warr described the NHS as “outdated” in a Telegraph article penned shortly before he and Johnson entered Downing Street last year, suggesting that the incoming prime minister should ask himself: “If I created the NHS today from scratch, what would it look like?” Warr answered: “Nothing like the monolith we have today.”
Boris Johnson’s first Queen’s Speech in December last year promised to “bring forward detailed proposals” and “draft legislation” to “accelerate the Long Term Plan for the NHS, transforming patient care and future-proofing our NHS.”
The British Medical Association (BMA) has characterised this Long Term Plan as a “plan for a market-driven healthcare system”.
Kailash Chand, the former BMA deputy chair, told openDemocracy he believed the purpose of the task force was part of a wider effort to drive forward more NHS privatisation: “These people are really clever at bringing these things in disguise. This is essentially about getting us towards… big pickings for private companies. It’s not going to happen overnight but this is the road map.”
Referring to McKinsey’s regular NHS recommendations that were implemented under the Cameron government, he said: “McKinsey were brought in previously to recommend financial savings. The easiest way for hospitals to achieve those targets was to cut beds, cut nurses and the salary bill. And we’re still suffering today.”
Boris Johnson has faced criticism for appointing political allies with no health experience to key roles in the COVID-19 response. Test and Trace head Dido Harding, another former McKinsey employee and Tory peer, is in the process of taking over a large portion of the soon-to-be-abolished Public Health England’s remit, the government announced in August. She has also been tipped as favourite to take over as chief executive of the English NHS from the current incumbent, Simon Stevens, next year.
Stevens’ own proposals for major NHS reform last year attempted to allay fears about further privatisation, though campaigners raised concerns that they could make outsourcing less transparent.
Both the Department of Health and the NHS now appear to be taking a back seat in policymaking. Stevens is not on the task force, and none of the four top senior servants in charge comes from the department.
Open Democracy approached Munira Mirza, Adrian Masters, Number 10 and the Treasury for comment, but all have declined to respond by the time of publication.
This is a reprint of an aricle in Open Democracy by Caroline Molloy 19.11.2020: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/revealed-boris-johnsons-controversial-policy-chief-leading-secretive-nhs-task-force/
Dr Applebee proposed the motion by TOWER HAMLETS DIVISION of the BMA: That this meeting, in response to COVID 19, demands that government:
i) ensure that workers are not under pressure to attend work either for financial or workforce reasons while they are unwell or self-isolating and at risk of inadvertently passing on the disease;
ii) provide the equivalent of day-one statutory sick pay to those on zero hours contracts;
iii) allow the NHS to requisition private health care facilities to accommodate effective COVID-19 treatment and quarantine provision if needed;
iv) ensure workers are paid in full while they are unwell or self-isolating.
With respect to point iii)
The COVID 19 pandemic has surely blown the myth that private is good and public is bad.
We have heard repeatedly today how the NHS has stepped up to the plate to deal with the crisis, though years of an unprecedented funding squeeze has led to the collateral damage that Chaand (Dr Chaand Nagpaul, Chair of the Council of BMA) referred to earlier of those whose other health needs could not be met due to the lack of slack in the system.
On the other hand outsourcing to the likes of Deloitte and Serco has led not to the world beating test trace isolate and support system trumpeted by Boris Johnson, but a wholesale fiasco where people are having to drive miles to get a COVID test and where, despite the billions spent, the global multinationals cannot do as well with contact tracing as the very poor relation that are local public health departments.
Private hospitals were handed hundreds of millions back in March to increase capacity to deal with COVID 19 but they were largely unused, gifting a nice windfall to their shareholders at a time when their usual work had all but dried up.
Now they are likely to commissioned to help with the backlog of NHS care. Don’t get me wrong the backlog needs to be cleared, patients need their treatment, but the private sector should not be able to profit from this. They should be brought into the NHS family and their activity now should be offset against the money they were given in March. There must be value for public money spent.
The fact that the NHS had to shut down everything except dealing with COVID in March is a stark illustration of the chronic underfunding and that there has to be spare capacity inbuilt into the system to deal with crises. The extra money thrown at the system should have been thrown at the NHS not the private sector.
With respect to points i), ii) and iv):
If we are going to crush COVID, really get on top of it, we need people to be able to afford to stay at home and isolate if they are in contact with an index case. If there is enough money in the economy to subsidise eating out there is surely enough to guarantee that if someone is in quarantine that they are paid in full.
Many of the lowest paid, for example cleaners, refuse collectors and care workers, many of whom have looked after patients with COVID, often of precarious zero hours contracts, cannot work from home, and to make ends meet many of them have two jobs. They need to be reassured that they wont’ lose out financially if they stay off work otherwise they will have no choice but to go in and the virus will continue to spread.
Covid is with us but Government could do so much more to minimise it’s devastating impact.
The pandemic has surely underlined the huge value of publicly funded, publicly provided health service which is free at the point of delivery and the demonstrated the dedication of the staff who work within the NHS and Social Care.
As has been said today already, we have an opportunity to reshape the future, it’s up to us whether we grasp the nettle.
Please support this motion in all it’s parts.
The Motion was passed with overwhelming support from delegates
A review of where the UK is in its response to the Covid-19 pandemic
Richard Horton, editor of the prestigious medical journal ‘The Lancet’, described the management of COVID-19 as the “greatest science policy failure for a generation” in his book on the pandemic. Currently the numbers of newly diagnosed patients are steeply rising with many wondering if the government has completely lost its grip. So – four months after Johnson showed his remarkable grasp of the scientific narrative by declaring: “If this virus were a physical assailant, an unexpected and invisible mugger (which I can tell you from personal experience it is), then this is the moment when we have begun together to wrestle it to the floor” – where do things stand?
In July, the lowest number of daily new positive tests recorded was 574; by 6th September 2020, this had risen alarmingly to nearly 3000 on each of two successive days, showing a sudden increase of around 50% just as schools were reopening and more workers being coaxed back into workplaces. Over the preceding few weeks, European countries such as France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands had all seen a sharp rise in new cases, with 40% being in the younger age group. In the UK, the change in new diagnoses from predominantly elderly people to the young was even more apparent, with two thirds being in this demographic, including the steepest increase seen in 10 – 19 year olds accused of not observing social distancing.
Meanwhile those with symptoms were often being told they will have to drive long distances, sometimes over a hundred miles, just to get a test. For many, this is simply not feasible, while for those who do make such a journey there is the risk of spreading infection further. At the same time statisticians have started to model the effects of NHS winter pressure combined with a second peak of coronavirus and predict that more than 100 acute hospital trusts will be operating at or above full capacity. A survey by the Doctors’ Association UK found that over 1,000 doctors were planning to quit the NHS through disillusion with the government’s management of the pandemic and frustration over pay. Recent national demonstrations calling for pay rises suggest many other NHS staff share these concerns and are prepared to take action.
A new public health report leaked to the press highlighted that COVID-19 was entrenched in some northern cities, and that case numbers had never really fallen to low levels during initial lockdown. This situation was strongly associated with deprivation, poor and overcrowded accommodation and ethnicity. New cases diagnosed per 100,000 population/week varied widely round the country at 98 in Bolton (topping the league), 37 in Manchester, 29 in Leeds, and only 3 in Southampton. The implication was that local lockdown measures were not likely to be any more effective in suppressing new infections and that there was an urgent need for a new strategy including better and locally tailored responses. These should include effective ‘find, test, trace, isolate and support’ (FTTIS) systems under the control of local authorities, many of which are in despair over their poor funding, and the hopeless performance of national ‘test and trace’. Given over at huge cost to the private companies Serco and Sitel, these are still only successfully contacting 50% of contacts of known cases, a figure that, according to the official Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, should be at least 80%, with all these contacts then going into isolation.
Other lessons to be learned relate to financial support for workers and isolation of those living in overcrowded housing. It is simply no good (i.e. it is ineffective as an infection control measure) to expect low paid workers often with little or no financial reserves to self isolate for two weeks with either no pay or derisory statutory sick pay – full pay must be given by employer or government. In addition, people in densely packed housing cannot effectively self isolate, and as in some other countries, need to be temporarily housed in suitable alternative accommodation. This might be reopened hotels, or the almost unused Nightingale hospitals for those with mild symptoms.
One question of interest is why figures have not jumped up in London where the number of new cases in different areas is between 6 and 18/100,000/week. Possible explanations are that London was initially hit very hard by COVID-19 and as a result people have remained more cautious. For example, many Londoners who are able to work from home have decided not to heed government advice to return to office buildings. Geographical disparities in numbers of cases probably also reflect the fact that in northern cities such as Bradford, Oldham, and Rochdale, there is a relatively higher proportion of the workforce in more public facing roles such as the National Health Service, taxi services, take away restaurants, etc. Antibody testing (carried out regularly on samples of the population) also indicates that something like 17.5% of Londoners have been infected compared with 5-7% in the rest of the country. Although this is far from ‘herd immunity’ (which would require about 70% of the population to have been infected) it may mean that rapid increases in numbers of infection is at least initially delayed.
There is now considerable support for the idea that an infected person can spread the virus over long distances through the atmosphere, although at the early stage of the pandemic this notion was rejected (hence the 2 meter social distancing advocated as being safe). There is an increasing body of evidence confirming aerosol spread of virus, and this is well illustrated in food processing plants. Detailed investigation of the huge German meat factory outbreak showed spread of virus came from a single worker in the factory, with infection transmitted over 8 meters and more, and did not represent community acquired infection being brought in simultaneously by a large number of employees. The implication is that environmental conditions and effective ventilation are crucial to preventing spread of COVID-19, but unfortunately government guidelines as yet do not acknowledge this issue or provide appropriate guidance – a clear example of following far behind the science.
Government strategy is reliant on the development of effective treatments and a vaccine; this in part explains the half-hearted approach to contact tracing. Lessons learned in the pandemic have reduced the numbers of patients that die once admitted to hospital, and this relates to use of oxygen delivery via a tube in the nose rather than one in the windpipe requiring the patient to be paralysed with drugs and breathing performed by a ventilator machine. Studies have also shown that giving a powerful anti-inflammatory steroid drug improves survival. As the number of patients has fallen considerably, less pressured staff also have more time to give better quality care. There is no basis for the suggestion that coronavirus has become less virulent; if it were to mutate, there is also the possibility it may become more rather than less harmful. The most likely explanation for rising case numbers overall with little change in hospital admissions and deaths is the fact that new cases are now predominantly in younger, fit people, who are much less likely to develop severe disease.
A vaccine is being presented as a ‘silver bullet’ that is just around the corner, however this is not the right message to give. There are estimated to be 170 research teams working on developing a vaccine, and nine products have reached large scale trials. To frame vaccine development as some kind of race increases the risk that a vaccine which is not very effective or has serious side effects will be rushed into use and public trust destroyed as a consequence. This would be hugely damaging and illustrates the importance of good public health messaging and the imperative of not compromising on safety through political pressure to deliver or the thirst for company profit. More important to bear in mind, there has never been an effective vaccine against a coronavirus just as there has never been an effective vaccine developed against HIV.
The Westminster government continues to choose to stumble on through the pandemic in the hope that a vaccine or effective treatment will arrive like a knight in shining armour, effect a rescue and bring us back to what was once normality. There is precious little reason to think that this is a sound strategy. Its cavalier approach to managing this unprecedented health emergency has included closing down Public Health England on spurious grounds – likened to taking the wings off a malfunctioning aeroplane in mid-flight in order to ensure a safe landing. Basic demands from the public must continue to be for an effective FTTIS system, nationally coordinated but locally delivered and aimed at complete disease suppression; much improved testing, including local testing units and rapid turn around of results; investment in NHS infrastructure and ending the obsession with inefficient and expensive private contracts; honesty and transparency to win public trust and unite the young and old in a common purpose. Sadly, a conservative government characterised by antagonism to public services and one that prioritises business interests over public health is unlikely to be either self critical and learn from experience or to implement positive changes such as those outlined above. The price for wearing such ideological blinkers will be more suffering and more economic damage as COVID-19 once again inevitably spreads like wildfire through our communities. Perhaps it is only a massively increased death toll that will make it change course.
5th July 2020
The 72nd birthday of the NHS takes place in the shadow of the COVID 19 pandemic.
The progress of the virus underlines the absolute importance of having an NHS as Bevan intended when it was founded in 1948, a comprehensive health service, publicly funded from general taxation, publicly provided and free at the point of delivery for all. The aim was to end inequalities in access to healthcare and July 5th 1948 famously saw queues of people round the block in a powerful demonstration of the size of the previous unmet need.
Since 1948, and accelerated since 1990, the founding ethos of the NHS has been under threat. One of the most cost-effective health care systems in the developed world, the NHS is nevertheless subject to repeated cuts and calls for efficiency savings, along with privatisation, fragmentation and competition, which was enshrined into NHS procurement by Andrew Lansley’s dastardly 2012 Health and Social Care Act. Public Health departments have been hollowed out and side-lined, at huge cost to their vital functions.
COVID 19 has laid bare the disastrous effects of the undermining of the NHS. People of BAME origin and the poor are far more likely to die of the virus. Years of NHS underfunding and outsourcing to the private sector has left it without the spare capacity to cope with the challenges of the pandemic. There has been insufficient appropriate PPE for health and social care workers, testing for the virus has been chaotic and outsourced to the private sector with no coordination with GP services, community contact tracing that has served well countries such as New Zealand, South Korea, Iceland and even Liberia, where they are used to dealing with Ebola so know what needs to be done, has been side-lined in the UK with reliance on a national system which has been deemed by Independent SAGE as not fit for purpose.
The result of this is that the UK has the ignominious honour of having the highest death toll from COVID in Europe, and, as I write, the third highest in the world, behind Brazil and the US.
BAME staff have died disproportionately yet they are the backbone of the NHS, often employed in the lowest paid of jobs on precarious contracts. To add insult to injury the hostile environment makes some of them ineligible for free NHS care. The Tories have done a U turn and said that the health surcharge will not apply to health workers, they have yet to implement this so the pressure needs to be maintained, but it does show what can be achieved through sustained campaigning.
A publicly run health service with adequate funding and planning based on need not profit, would have mitigated many of the challenges that COVID 19 has presented.
So, on this the 72nd birthday of our NHS we must keep fighting to have it restored into public ownership. The Black Lives Matter movement chimes with the disproportionate death toll amongst our BAME brothers and sisters, everyone should have equality of opportunity in life and equal access to health care. This can only be achieved in a society based on need not profit.
We have a job to do. If we fight, we can win.
Below is the Doctors in Unite repose to the Peers Inquiry which has asked for an open consultation from the public and professionals in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.
We welcome the opportunity to feed into the Peers Inquiry into Public Service Lessons from Coronavirus.
We are Doctors in Unite, the doctor’s branch of Unite the Union. Our members are from all branches of practice and public health across the UK. Our website can be accessed at https://doctorsinunite.com. We have written extensively during the Covid19 pandemic. Our articles can be found on our website.
We believe that the end of the Lockdown is only the end of phase 1. We must act quickly, learning lessons from other countries’ experience, to prevent a second wave or surge and we need to be preparing for next winter when we can expect the return of seasonal flu and the usual winter bed crisis. These in combination with unfettered COVID 19 would be catastrophic
The Committee is seeking input on the following questions:
Health and social care staff have embraced the challenges and worked flat out to care for the public. They have done this despite lack of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), we will never know how many have lost their lives as a direct result of this.
The massive decrease in air and road traffic and hence in air pollution is also something to be celebrated along with the decrease in mortality from respiratory illnesses (excluding COVID). Many people report enjoying the reduced levels of noise and being able to hear bird song.
The implementation of free transport on London’s buses will have encouraged some people not to drive, further diminishing emission of pollutants, but we must not forget that this was driven by the unacceptably high mortality from COVID of London’s bus drivers. They should not have had to die, they should have been issued with adequate PPE. We believe that free bus travel should continue as a fitting legacy to them and as one tool in the fight to combat climate change.
The decrease in traffic and the reluctance of people to use crowded public transport has led to a significant increase in cycling. It is welcome that the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has chosen to capitalise on this and improve cycling infrastructure in the capital. The health and environmental benefits from the increase of active transport must not be squandered.
The level of failure has been legion.
The Westminster Government responded extremely slowly to the approach of the virus. They squandered weeks, when it was obvious that COVID was heading our way. Time when they should have been making preparations including sourcing appropriate PPE and setting up test, trace, isolate and support systems. We believe that these delays can only be explained by ideological dogma overcoming sound public health advice and established good practice.
It is increasingly widely held that if lockdown had happened a week earlier that thousands of lives could have been saved.
There should also have been a plan, under the aegis of Directors of Public Health, to reduce transmission in care homes and a plan for treatment within homes where necessary. This could have included the provision of oxygen and outreach medical and nursing teams.
Massive cuts in the Public Health budget during the last decade of austerity have severely curtailed the ability of local teams to respond to the pandemic and set up time honoured infectious disease control processes of test, trace, isolate and support. Countries that have adopted these methods have had far fewer deaths per head of population from COVID 19 than the UK which is in the ignominious position of having one of the highest death tolls in the world. We regard the premature abandonment of contract tracing along with the failure to curtail mass public events as major strategic errors. The Governments promise to set up a national test, track and trace programme by the beginning of June has been beset with problems and the official start date has been repeatedly postponed. It is now unlikely to be ready by the end of June, if then, yet local councils are holding back on developing local schemes putting their faith in the national one. Independent SAGE are clear that locally based test, trace, isolate and support is the way forward
The public have behaved extremely well. They have understood the seriousness of COVID 19 for some people and the pressures on the NHS and Social Care. During the peak of the pandemic attendances for non COVID related illnesses were much lower than expected. This however brings its own problems in that mortality and morbidity from non COVID conditions will be higher than usual leaving a massive legacy of unmet need. Lessons must be learned from this. Health and social care capacity must be invested in so that this backlog can be quickly addressed. Investment must be maintained so that we are never in the situation again that we found ourselves in with COVID 19 where there was no slack in the system to enable us to cope.
COVID has shown that the public are willing to accept huge changes if there is an existential threat. Government should acknowledge this and be much bolder in their attempts to tackle climate chang
Resource, efficiency and workforce
The NHS has been decimated by cuts and privatisation over the last two decades but there is still some semblance of central coordination of a still largely, though shrinking, publicly provided service. This has enabled some level of planning. Social Care, on the other hand is nearly all privately provided and as a result so fragmented that there is little if any central planning of that sector. The tragic catastrophe of the thousands of deaths in care homes where low paid staff, many of whom work on precarious contracts through agencies is a damning indictment of the policy of privatisation of this sector which, lacking resilience, has become heavily dependent on the public sector for survival. In this context we note the Welsh Government intervened early on and arranged for regular PPE supplies to its care sector.
Social Care should be brought back into public ownership and the NHS should be restored to the comprehensive, publicly funded, publicly provided service, free at the point of delivery that it was in 1948. The NHS was founded to give everyone equal access to health and social care, doing away with the need for the funds to pay for it or the reliance on charity. There must be no return to workhouse mentality, charity and privatisation has no place in the provision of health and social care.
Despite Operation Cygnus finding in 2016 that “The UK’s preparedness and response, in terms of its plans, policies and capability, is currently not sufficient to cope with the extreme demands of a severe pandemic that will have a nationwide impact across all sectors,” the then Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt refused to implement its’ recommendations.
We believe that the COVID 19 pandemic has highlighted how essential it is to have a comprehensive NHS which is publicly funded from general taxation, publicly provided and free to all at the point of delivery. Public Health and Social Care should be included in this because to provide effective health care the three must work together.
Pandemics usually lead to increases in morbidity and mortality from other non pandemic conditions. A decade of austerity, where the NHS has been forced to work at full capacity so that there is no slack in the system has made this worse. The shocking drop in the number of GP referrals for cancer treatment – down 60 percent from last year, and GP referrals to specialist care – down three quarters from last year, is incredibly concerning. Hospital bed occupancy of 85% is the upper limited that is deemed safe, but for years many hospital trusts have run at levels well above 90% leaving no room to respond to emergencies such as COVID 19.
Please see answer to (3) above. The effect of cuts in the NHS and Social Care has seriously damaged the capacity to respond to the pandemic.
We welcome the Government’s decision to remove the NHS tariff for overseas health and social care staff (though we note there are delays in its implementation) but we regard it as reprehensible that the UK Government still treats many health and social care staff as being low skill and that they will be subject to strict migration restrictions.
This is mainly due to the dedication of public sector staff who have worked flat out to protect and care for the public.
Technology, data and innovation
Health services, especially General Practice have embraced remote working and largely consult through telephone or video in order to keep patients safe by minimising exposure to Covid 19. However this is not a panacea and care must be taken before this becomes the new norm. Many people, especially in deprived areas, do not have reliable access to the internet. There is a considerable amount of digital poverty. This must not be allowed to become an additional barrier to the vulnerable accessing care. Nor is it necessarily a better and more efficient way to deliver care. There is no evidence that on line consulting is quicker and it robs the clinician of valuable cues from the patient that are only available in face to face settings.
Others will be better qualified to comment on this question than we are.
See answer to question 6.
Lockdown has led to an increase in domestic violence, this is yet another sector that has suffered huge cuts in the last ten years so that support services are unable to cope with demand.
The Governments hostile environment has been a deterrent to overseas migrants seeking the health care that they need. Many Overseas migrants are not eligible for routine NHS secondary care, though COVID, along with other conditions is exempt from charging. This policy causes overseas migrants to fear that seeking health care will either lead to destitution due to bills that they cannot pay, or deportation if their status is undocumented and seeking health care flags them to the home office. The policy is complex and many do not understand that some conditions are exempt, leading them to fail to seek any sort of health care. This is inhumane and the policy should be scrapped, but in addition it adds to the level of circulating virus in the community that is present to infect others.
Another effect of the Government’s hostile environment is that many undocumented migrants work in low paid roles in the care sector and lack employment rights. They are financially compelled to work even when unwell and if out of work they have no recourse to benefits.
We note the high level of death and illness that afflicted health and social care staff, predominantly affected those from a BAME background.
COVID 19 has laid bare the inequalities in UK society. Mortality has disproportionately affected the poor and vulnerable, particularly the BAME community. The PHE report into disparities in outcome for COVID has been widely criticised for giving no recommendations for action.
During normal times the life expectancy and the healthy life expectancy of the richest in society is years greater than for the poorest. Poverty, poor nutrition and lack of control over one’s life lead to the poor health outcomes and disproportionate incidence of chronic long term conditions amongst the poorest in society. COVID 19 disproportionately kills off those with chronic long term conditions. This is not news, the Black Report in the 1980s and more recently Sir Michael Marmot’s reports of 2010 and this year’s ten years on, clearly show the problems and identify solutions. That their recommendations have not been acted on has meant that the poorest in society have disproportionately died.
Despite these inequalities having been well documented for decades the public policy response over the last decade has been to move in an opposite direction. We have seen recent governments pursue policies to reduce the role of the state even though it is the major instrument to redistribute services and opportunity in modern British society. Within the public sector resources have been dramatically moved away from local authorities and other public bodies serving communities and groups with the greatest social need. With this loss of publicly funded support and resilience it is not surprising that these communities have suffered the most in the present Covid-19 crisis. The words of the UN Special Rapporteur are a damning indictment of these policies.
Integration of services
We fully support that health and social care should work seamlessly. We are concerned however that in many instances patients were transferred to care homes without their Covid-19 status being firmly established. This is not acceptable and leaves a vulnerable section of the population exposed to a virulent infection.
For the future there needs to be proper transitional and quarantine provision in place between the NHS and Social Care and within Social Care itself.
We note the proportion of care homes that became affected by Covid-19 varied considerably – almost 60% of Scottish homes had Covid-19 compared to 40% in England and 25% in Wales. This variation should be examined to see if there are any lessons to be learned.
The three devolved administrations, who largely embraced a public services response, seemed to provide a more coherent and integrated response than the fragmented, cocktail approach in England which was over-dependent on out-sourcing and ad-hoc arrangements with private companies. These experiences also highlighted the desirability for more local responses – and in the English context the London-centric leadership did not allow a more tailored response to the local need across the country.
We also commend the Welsh Government’s decision to provide front line care staff with a bonus of £500 in recognition of loyal and dedicated service. It is a pity that the Treasury has not seen fit to exempt this sum from tax and national insurance liabilities.
See response to question 3. Years of privatisation, fragmentation and cuts, with the added difficulty of enshrining competition into the NHS with the 2012 Health and Social Care Act have severely undermined the ability to provide integrated services across the system. Removing these barriers and facilitating sensible system wide planning around the needs of those who need to be cared for rather than the constant push for “efficiency savings” in a sector that has been subjected to an unprecedented financial squeeze during the last decade of austerity would help enormously.
See answers to previous questions, cuts, privatisation and consequent fragmentation with competitive procurement processes have severely undermined the ability of public services to collaborate and provide person centred care. Any good practice is down to the willingness and dedication of health and social care staff to go above and beyond the call of duty.
The relationship between central Government and local government, and national and local services
While we agree that there should be a “Four Nation” response to the pandemic across the UK, each devolved administration should retain the ability and capacity to respond to its own needs where necessary.
If a “Four Nation” response is to work more effectively it requires Westminster to engage in a regular and consistent dialogue with the devolved administrations. Pandemics do not need permission to cross borders. This has not always the case during Covid-19 to date. There are opportunities for shared procurement practices across the UK but we are concerned to hear that some supply contracts agreed with devolved administrations were “gazumped” by Westminster. There is also a need to revisit how professional advice is secured and commissioned. Bodies such as SAGE are predominately under the wing of Whitehall and the UK Government with devolved governments having a very secondary role. This can mean that crucial strategic decisions are made at a “Whitehall pace” rather than that which might be more appropriate to the devolved parts of the UK.
Community contact tracing is an area which should be locally driven to provide the best outcomes. However the Westminster Government have insisted on a nationally driven programme, which has been beset with problems and has been described by ISAGE as being unfit for purpose. This insistence on a national solution has hindered the setting up of local test, trace, isolate and support systems which have been proven to be effective in disease control. See also answer to question 18.
See answer to question 13.
Places where community test, trace, isolate and support have been piloted have given insights into how they can be made to work. Ceredigion, Sheffield and Northern Ireland, for example, have successfully instituted local schemes.
Lack of properly coordinated local schemes will lead to avoidable deaths as lockdown is eased and people begin to move around more freely. The app promised by Hancock is clearly beset with major problems
The rise in foodbank usage shows how desperately close to poverty are so many in our population. This situation could, and should, be prevented in future by an adequate benefits system, or universal minimum income, and a significant rise in statutory sick pay to at least the minimum living wage. This support is vital in view of the particular vulnerability of disadvantaged and marginalised communities.
Role of the private sector, charities, volunteers and community groups
Mutual Aid groups were quickly set up across the country and people undertook their social responsibility to forgo freedoms in order to protect others and save lives. This is potentially an important future asset and we urge both national and local government to explore ways of supporting this important reservoir of social solidarity and community cohesion.
It is a scandal that care home workers needed to access charities to be able to afford to eat if they were sick or needed to self isolate. (see also answer to 19 above).
The involvement of the private sector has led to an only too familiar string of unfortunate events.
Unipart did not have the workforce to distribute the PPE that was available. https://www.hsj.co.uk/finance-and-efficiency/system-failure-on-personal-protective-equipment/7027207.article
Serco had a serious data breach where they revealed the email addresses of hundreds of contact tracing call handlers to each other.
Capita took weeks to process the applications of retired GPs and other staff who were willing to return to work to help with pandemic management.
Privately run testing centres, such as those of Deloittes, are difficult to access, results have gone missing and have not been communicated to GPs.
Virus testing occurs in ‘super labs’ bypassing existing NHS facilities which have much quicker turnaround times and good links to the local General Practices that they serve. Testing in NHS labs would have kept GPs in the loop, vital for community contact tracing.
Private hospitals were thrown a life line when the Government struck a deal to pay them £2,400,000 per day to rent 800 beds, without this these hospitals would have struggled for business. Few of the beds were used, but the private hospitals were paid the money anyway.
It is our view that private capacity should have been requisitioned, not rented out. £2,400,000 per day would have been far better spent on the NHS and Social Care provision.
In conclusion we would like to reiterate that we believe that the COVID 19 pandemic has highlighted that it is essential to have a comprehensive NHS which is publicly funded from general taxation, publicly provided and free to all at the point of delivery. Public Health and Social Care should be included in this because to provide effective health care the three must work together for the needs of the patient and not for profit.