Against the backdrop of a decade of austerity stemming from the financial crash of 2007, four explanations suggest themselves. The first is that the government is preoccupied with Brexit and has little time to address other pressing issues such as schools’ funding, housing shortages, resources to fight crime, and growing evidence of distress in the NHS and social care. Whereas in ‘normal’ times all these issues would be receiving widespread news coverage and sustained attention in Whitehall, the outcome of the EU referendum means that Brexit is preventing this happening.
The second explanation is that economic uncertainty linked to Brexit has limited the Chancellor’s room for manoeuvre. Specifically, with progress on the Brexit negotiations proceeding slowly, and an increasing possibility of no deal being reached, the Treasury will not want to commit to public spending rises to avoid being boxed in when the outcome of the negotiations is known.
The third explanation is that the government is not persuaded that an NHS crisis is around the corner. Some ministers take an even tougher line, believing that there is considerable scope to increase NHS efficiency and that this will only happen when leaders in the NHS realise that more money will not be found. Arguments that the NHS is a bottomless pit and will use whatever funding is provided and keep on coming back for more may not be a common view among the current crop of ministers but nor is it an exceptional view.
The fourth explanation is that neither the current Prime Minister nor her Chancellor share the commitment to the NHS of their immediate predecessors. David Cameron’s gratitude to the NHS for the care given to his family is a matter of public record and George Osborne’s support was evident in the additional funding made available in the last Spending Review. Both were involved with Jeremy Hunt in the appointment of Simon Stevens as head of NHS England and all of these individuals worked to the same agenda, based on the NHS five year forward view.
The outcome of the referendum tore this alliance asunder and the consequences were evident in the well-publicised spat between Stevens and No.10 earlier this year. Since then a modus vivendi has been re-established although whether it will survive Stevens’ recent warnings about the impact of continuing financial constraints remains to be seen. What is clear is that there are significant risks for the government in ignoring these and other warnings in view of the attachment the public feels towards the NHS and evidence that services are stretched to the limits.
What might unblock the current impasse? When I worked in the Department of Health between 2000 and 2004, I learnt that public attitudes towards the NHS are tracked closely and taken seriously by ministers. Judging by the annual British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey, the public remain positive about the NHS with satisfaction levels near an all-time high. The survey is, however, a lagging indicator, and recent Ipsos MORI polling reveals rising public concern about the NHS and fears that its performance will deteriorate.
If these fears materialise, the government may feel impelled to act but by that stage so much damage will have been done to services that it will be difficult to reverse the decline. Far better to intervene now and find the additional funding The King’s Fund and others have argued is necessary (£4 billion in 2018/19 as a down-payment on meeting a funding gap we estimate at £20 billion by 2022/23 based on current spending plans) thereby demonstrating that the NHS really is safe in this government’s hands.
A former Conservative Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, famously said that to govern is to choose. For Philip Hammond, the moment of choice is approaching rapidly, and on this occasion it will have far reaching implications both for the government and for the public for whom the NHS remains a treasured institution.
As a governor at SLaM I am very concerned about the cuts that have to be made to mental health services in our 4 boroughs (Croydon, Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark). There are particular concerns about Eating disorders (both adult and Child and Adolescent) and the care of patients in crisis who attend A&E departments. Although the government says that it has put an extra £11.6 m into mental health services in the last year, none of this has reached SLaM, in fact the 4 local CCGs are cutting funding to SLAM. We hear that this funding has been used to support Acute services - is that fair? With most mental health disorders early intervention can help to prevent more serious problems, but too often patients have to wait until there condition is more serious before they are seen.
As a recruited NHS physiotherapist from South Africa 21 years ago, I have participated in and subsequently observed the rise and fall of health and social care in the UK. My brief was to set up community services to support older people and community staff to maintain their independence at home, thereby preventing admission to acute care. Lifespan NHS Trust in Cambridge, was a pioneer and by 2003 we had made great strides. It was heartbreaking to see these services disintegrate from then on. There had been an overspend but induced by continual reopening of old facilities to make a good political show of care. No cost was spared. When a new Secretary of State replaced Alan Johnson, Central Government and Sir David Nicholes, the new CEO of NHS England, took over and draconian measures were put in place, curbing any initiative to reconfigure a more effective way of working. The Kings Fund at the time were poised to support these initiatives but were blindly ignored by NHS management. I appealed to our professional body to pay attention if our profession was to survive but it fell on deaf ears. It seems to me that, as usual, political power games rule the waves. If the ship of the NHS strikes the rock it is merely counted as collateral damage. Tony Blair declared at one of his re-elections, that he had heard the voice of the people loud and clear, who had asked for elderly care to be a priority. He went on to ignore this and, as a country, we know the devastating consequences which have destabilised the world and disintegrated care at home. The only way to survive seems to be for local communities to take responsibility for their health and well-being, supported by a sympathetic central and, above all, local government. That however may not have sufficient political shine to make headlines. Simon Stevens, not for the first time, may yet save the day.