Politicians, not doctors, are pushing NHS Bill

MAY I start by agreeing with two points in Julian Smith MP’s article (Yorkshire Post, March 16)?

Firstly, the NHS has already been able to reduce administration staff and work closely with charities in the community, and the NHS provides the best value for money among major western economies. So we need no Bill on these grounds.

I agree too that “GPs are on the front line of the NHS... who better to have more say on how the NHS is run?” But the Royal College of GPs vehemently oppose this Bill, Julian, because they will not in fact be in charge, and the Bill will make the NHS less efficient. Should we accept their word or that of those politicians who promised “no top-down reorganisation of the NHS”?

Your readers may have been surprised by Mr Smith’s statement that: “Each hospital I have visited has been thinking about what it does best and what should be left to others.” He especially mentions the chief executive of Airedale Hospital as an example of strong leadership; so can we expect that she and managers in Harrogate, Bradford and elsewhere will be planning accordingly?

Will they leave patients like the elderly with chronic conditions “to others”?

These reforms again ignore rural areas with minimal public transport. Where will GPs, patients and carers who want an accessible service from the Dales go? To Airedale for some services, Harrogate for others, Bradford or maybe Preston?

Local GPs will not be allowed to continue as at present because patients prefer provision of most services from Airedale. This would be banned as “anti-competitive behaviour”.

The Bill sets up a new organisation called Monitor who will enforce competition on local commissioning groups (chair and chief executive already appointed from the private sector).