July 25, 2010
LONDON — Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.
Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.
Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.
The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.
In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would “cause significant disruption and loss of jobs.” But it said: “The current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.”
The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients. Currently, how and where patients are treated, and by whom, is largely determined by decisions made by 150 entities known as primary care trusts — all of which would be abolished under the plan, with some of those choices going to patients. It would also abolish many current government-set targets, like limits on how long patients have to wait for treatment.
"He will have to explain to the American people why his vision for bigger government, more spending, and higher taxes will work over the next four years when it hasn't worked in the past three and a half years.” – Sen. Rob Portman on President Obama
By Justin FishelPublished May 16, 2012 | FoxNews.comIt was May 10, 1970, in Se San, Cambodia. Spc. Leslie H. Sabo Jr. and his platoon were ambushed by a large enemy force. The 22-year-old rifleman...
trscoop: RT @Robert23Hersey: @TRScoop You called it .
postpolitics: Wonkblog: What the oil industry wants — in charts http://t.co/7qHfo6Qd
trscoop: RT @AntiqueSully: @trscoop <-------------Nostradamus
washingtonpost: Senate panel approves benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees: http://t.co/b1RSwzIo
memeorandum: The 3 economic charts that could crash Obama's reelection hopes (James Pethokoukis / The... http://t.co/J2golFyX http://t.co/jsgdKsAn