NHS and privatisation

I watched The Big Questions on BBC this morning and found myself getting more and more worked up by the views of those supporting privatisation in the NHS. I find that I can’t watch BBC Question Time because I just so annoyed I then can’t sleep. The Big Questions has a similar effect on me, but at least it’s in the morning.

There are two aspects to the involvement of the private sector in the NHS. One is that private sector companies could supply services to the NHS, the other is that the NHS itself could take on private sector work. It is the latter that some would like increased to a maximum of 49% of any NHS trust’s work. The main argument in favour of increasing private sector involvement in the NHS is that the current model is unsustainable, largely because we have an ageing population. This may indeed be true, but it’s not obvious that more private sector involvement is the solution.

The argument for the private sector providing services for the NHS is that it will be more efficient and competition will drive down costs. Given that the private sector needs to make a profit, it would need be significantly more efficient in order to provide the same level and quality of service for less than the NHS can do itself. The evidence for competition driving down costs appears to be slim (look at healthcare in the US) and so it doesn’t seem clear to me that this argument makes sense.

The argument for the NHS taking on private work is that the profit can then be used to fund the rest of the NHS. This is where I would really like someone to explain the logic of this argument. Currently we spend less than 10% of GDP to provide healthcare to the 62 million people in the UK. It has been suggested that the ageing population and other factors will lead to increased costs and that, therefore, we need a new model (in fact, it was suggested that using public funding for this would lead to a degrade in our credit rating and hence extra borrowing costs).

Let’s imagine that the NHS takes on private work and uses the profit to fund these extra costs. Assuming that we want to maintain the current quality and level of care that the NHS provides, the NHS can’t do private work at the expense of the rest of its services. Those paying for this private work will expect private rooms, good food, and excellent standard of care. This will require extra resources and will, presumably, cost more than the cost of what would be provided to a typical NHS patient (although one would like to think that the level of medical care offered to typical NHS patients is still good, just not as good as that offered to private patients). These private patients will therefore have to pay for this extra level of care and will also have to pay extra in order for the profits from this private work to fund the expected shortfall in NHS funding. This extra payment will presumably have to be substantial if it is going to pay for the funding shortfall without reducing the standard of care that the NHS provides to its typical patients.

Why would anyone willing to pay for private healthcare be happy with this model. In some sense they would be subsidising the NHS. It’s seems that this would eventually fail. The wealthy will presumably have enough clout to argue that this wasn’t fair. Furthermore, if the NHS is to provide private sector work it will have to be competitive. This means offering the service at the best possible price. How can they then make substantial profits. In a sense this seems doomed to fail for exactly the reason that many use to justify private sector involvement in the NHS in the first place.

Another issue is, why is this a better economic model. Currently we provide a good level of care to the entire population for about 8% of GDP. We believe costs will rise due to an ageing population. To solve this we want to increase private sector involvement that will not only provide more expensive care, but will also pay for these extra costs. The fraction of GDP spent on healthcare will therefore increase quite substantially (as it has in the US). I can’t see why this is a good thing. Surely we should be aiming to provide a level of care for everyone at the lowest possible cost. The more we spend on healthcare (as a country) the less there is for everything else. Providing healthcare is, in my opinion, a wealth creating endeavour. However, spending too much on healthcare can damage our wealth creating abilities. Also, why do credit ratings agency care where the money comes from. If providing healthcare in the UK is going to cost 12% of GDP (rather than 8% as it does today) why does it matter if it is all through taxation, or if some is through taxation and some through patients paying privately. Given that the latter will probably costs more, surely providing through taxation is a better economic model as it reduces our total healthcare spending and frees up money for other wealth creating endeavours.


6 thoughts on “NHS and privatisation

  1. good article, the fact is the entire nation is against it, including all proffesionals within the NHS, yet the torys push ahead with it, contradicting the very meaning of democracy (even worse considering they pledged they would protect it to get elected)
    This comes as no suprise such is the sleeze of politicians and torys. We do not live in a free country we do not live in a democracy.

    The conservatives have used the excuse to severe austerity to push ideological aims in the sacrafice of a sound economic plan, this is clear. Typical destruction of public sector, increase of private sector and supimentation, all policies that benefit the city of london,NHS privitisation and attacking the masses with welfare propoganda for percecution. While they conveniently ignore bankers bonus tax

    • Thanks for the comment. I don’t get many :-). Part of me would like to think that the tories simply don’t realise that what they’re saying doesn’t make sense. That they really believe that we’ll all be better off after they’ve restructured the NHS. That Langsley won’t release the risk register makes it clear that such a view is naive and that they simply have an idealogical desire to change the NHS, largely because they don’t like the wealthy paying taxes that ultimately benefit those who are not as well off. They would rather that everyone paid their own way. Given that many cannot do so, and will never be able to do so, means that many will suffer if their changes do go ahead.

  2. Julie Meyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Meyer) was one of the guests on Question Time on Thursday night and reportedly (I didn’t manage to watch the show myself) said “Why not turn the NHS into a trillion pound industry?”. Immediately silly given that the entire UK GDP is only about 1.5 Trillion pounds. What I found particularly amusing was the Twitter response (from Martin Robbins – The Lay Scientist) “because it costs far f***ing less than that now?!”. I think this really does sum up the issue very nicely. Why produce a healthcare system that is likely to be more expensive than it is now and unlikely to provide a significantly better service (to most at least).

  3. Pingback: 100th post | To the left of centre

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s