NHS doesn't stand for "National High Street"

Providers in the new NHS must be free to integrate care in the patient interest, even if this has the effect of reducing competition argues Chris Hopson, the new chief executive of the Foundation Trust Network.

On the High Street, competition law creates a competitive market by ensuring a range of different suppliers, fostering competition based on price, avoiding monopolies and probing vertical integration in the supply chain (for example, supermarkets owning dairies).

But there are other models for preserving the consumer interest which recognise that certain areas of our national life have specific characteristics that require a different approach.

Last month, for example, saw a highly publicised row between two train operating companies bidding for a long term, monopoly, franchise. The franchise deliberately runs for long enough to enable the operator to earn a sufficient return on the expensive infrastructure needed to provide a quality customer service.

Last month also saw the closure of the football transfer window, which restricts the times when clubs can buy new players. Clubs also now have to abide by new Financial Fair Play rules which are designed to create a level playing field by restricting the amount of money wealthy owners can invest to "buy success".

What does all this have to do with the NHS? The Health and Social Care Act, passed earlier this year, marks the next stage in the journey away from a single, all encompassing, command and control health service. It continues work begun by the previous Labour administration to create a more plural system where, in some areas of care, a wider range of providers compete to provide services for patients. As a result, patients have greater choice rather than, for example, being forced to use the closest NHS hospital.

But the health sector is not the High Street. Competition is based on quality, not price, with the price of an increasing range of treatments determined by a single tariff, to be set in future by a central Commissioning Board and the sector regulator. There also needs to be a strong emphasis on integrating care, defined by the NHS Future Forum as "integration around the patient, not the system". The Forum went on to argue that "outcomes, incentives and system rules (i.e. competition and choice) need to be aligned accordingly".

It's easy to see why integrating care is so important. An 80 year old frail patient with multiple problems needs a joined-up network of acute and primary care services where geriatricians, nurses, physiotherapists, and podiatrists all understand the individual patient's needs, and the care provided has no gaps - an integrated care pathway.

Diabetic patients in Bolton now have a centre staffed by specialists that care for inpatients at the local hospital but also care for patients at home by working with GPs. The very GPs who, in future, are likely to have commissioned the centre to provide this service. Elderly patients in several Surrey care homes are visited by hospital based geriatricians who advise staff and help to prevent patients being admitted to hospital unnecessarily.

These are all examples of good, joined-up, care: benefitting individual patients, reducing cost and providing better value for money for the taxpayer. But they do involve integration across the NHS, between different organisations that may be commissioning or competing with each other to provide services. Some might argue this reduces competition.

The Foundation Trust Network, which represents the vast majority of acute, mental health, community and ambulance providers in the NHS, is co-hosting fringe sessions at all the party conferences to explore how the NHS can achieve the right balance between integration and competition. It's an important question as the detailed rules for the new NHS are finalised over the next six months.

We'll also be particularly focussed on the importance of the NHS sustaining a flourishing and vibrant set of public providers over the longer term. The way the new rules are formulated will have a crucial impact here. If we get them wrong, there's a danger, to focus on another cause celebre in the competition world, that these organisations could turn into the dairy farmers of the healthcare sector. They might end up working for payments that do not cover costs; forced to sign up to short term contracts that offer no incentive to invest in innovations that improve quality and efficiency and facing an uncertain financial future.

Chris Hopson is the chief executive of the Foundation Trust Network

Photograph: Getty Images
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.