Why the Tories will have to consider NHS charges after 2015

With George Osborne determined to avoid further tax rises, patient charges will be the only way to solve the health funding crisis.

Another Spending Review has been settled with the NHS again protected from cuts. But the longer austerity continues, the harder it will be for the government to justify special treatment for some departments. As last week's Resolution Foundation report showed, if the current ring-fences around health, international development and schools are maintained, some departments will have had their budgets more than halved by 2018, with a 64% cut to the Foreign Office, a 46% cut to the Home Office and a 36% cut to defence. Something will have to give. And with the Tories reportedly planning to rule out further tax rises, it will be even harder for any area to escape Osborne's axe (should he still be in the Treasury after May 2015). 

There is a strong case for making an exception for the NHS. Polls show that it is the most popular spending area with voters and the above-average rate of inflation in the health service means it requires real-terms rises just to stand still. As today's SMF paper on the Spending Review notes, "A ‘flat real’ settlement for the NHS is therefore not what it sounds like since it is defined with reference to an irrelevant price index. To keep up with rising input costs, growing demand, and the public’s expectations for an adequate healthcare system, growth in spending on health has historically outstripped GDP growth." 

By historic standards, the NHS is undergoing austerity. Since 1950, health spending has grown at an average annual rate of 4%, but over the current Spending Review it will rise by an average of just 0.5%. As a result, in the words of the SMF, there has been "an effective cut of £16bn from the health budget in terms of what patients expect the NHS to deliver". Should the NHS receive flat real settlements for the three years from 2015-16 (as seems probable), this cut will increase to £34bn or 23%.

Without further tax rises, the inevitable result will be a significant fall in the quality and quantity of services. But with the Tories seemingly determined to avoid these, another option rears its head: patient charges. At today's British Medical Association conference, that it is precisely what doctors will propose. Gordon Matthews, a member of the BMA consultants’ committee, will say: "A publicly funded and free-at-the-point-of- delivery NHS cannot afford all available diagnostics and treatments." Outlining the funding crisis that I've just described, he will add: "Everyone recognises that we’re in times of austerity, there isn’t a lot of money around, while public expectations have gone up and up, medical treatments have become more expensive and there isn’t an easy way to square the circle."

Matthew will propose drawing up a list of core services that will be provided for free, with charges introduced for others. If this seems heretical, it's worth remembering that our "free" health service hasn't been truly free since Labour chancellor Hugh Gaitskell introduced prescription charges for glasses and dentures in his 1951 Budget (although they have been abolished in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). Morally speaking, there is no difference between these fees and co-payments. There is also growing public recognition that a high-quality NHS will need to be paid for. A recent Ipsos MORI poll for The King's Fund found that there is support for introducing charges for treatments that are not perceived as "clinically necessary" (such as cosmetic surgery and elective caesarean sections), for people thought to "misuse services" (e.g. missing appointments or arriving drunk at A&E), for patients requiring treatment as a result of "lifestyle choices" (e.g. smoking and obesity) and for 'top-ups' to non-clinical aspects of care (e.g. private rooms and other 'hotel' services). 

For now, the Tories insist that they will not go down this road. After Malcolm Grant, the chair of the NHS Commissioning Board warned last month that the next government would have to consider introducing "new charging systems" unless "the economy has picked up sufficiently", Jeremy Hunt told MPs: "Professor Malcolm Grant did not say that. What he actually said was that if the NHS considered charging, he would oppose it. I agree with him; I would oppose it, too." But just as pensioner benefits, once considered untouchable, are now being targeted by all parties for cuts, it seems increasingly unlikely that a "free NHS" will survive the age of austerity. 

Consultant Gynaecologist Ertan Saridogan gives Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt a demonstration of a laparoscopy system during a tour of University College Hospital. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'm far from convinced by Cameron's plans for Syria

The Prime Minister has a plan for when the bombs drop. But what about after?

In the House of Commons today, the Prime Minister set out a powerful case for Britain to join air strikes against Isil in Syria.  Isil, he argued, poses a direct threat to Britain and its people, and Britain should not be in the business of “outsourcing our security to our allies”. And while he conceded that further airstrikes alone would not be sufficient to beat Isil, he made the case for an “Isil first” strategy – attacking Isil now, while continuing to do what we can diplomatically to help secure a lasting settlement for Syria in which Assad (eventually) plays no part.

I agreed with much of David Cameron’s analysis. And no-one should doubt either the murderous barbarism of Isil in the region, or the barbarism they foment and inspire in others across the world.  But at the end of his lengthy Q&A session with MPs, I remained unconvinced that UK involvement in airstrikes in Syria was the right option. Because the case for action has to be a case for action that has a chance of succeeding.  And David Cameron’s case contained neither a plan for winning the war, nor a plan for winning the peace.

The Prime Minister, along with military experts and analysts across the world, concedes that air strikes alone will not defeat Isil, and that (as in Iraq) ground forces are essential if we want to rid Syria of Isil. But what is the plan to assemble these ground forces so necessary for a successful mission?  David Cameron’s answer today was more a hope than a plan. He referred to “70,000 Syrian opposition fighters - principally the Free Syrian Army (FSA) – with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on Isil”.

But it is an illusion to think that these fighters can provide the ground forces needed to complement aerial bombardment of Isil.  Many commentators have begun to doubt whether the FSA continues to exist as a coherent operational entity over the past few months. Coralling the myriad rebel groups into a disciplined force capable of fighting and occupying Isil territory is a heroic ambition, not a plan. And previous efforts to mobilize the rebels against Isil have been utter failures. Last month the Americans abandoned a $500m programme to train and turn 5,400 rebel fighters into a disciplined force to fight Isil. They succeeded in training just 60 fighters. And there have been incidents of American-trained fighters giving some of their US-provided equipment to the Nusra Front, an affiliate of Al Qaeda.

Why has it proven so hard to co-opt rebel forces in the fight against Isil? Because most of the various rebel groups are fighting a war against Assad, not against Isil.  Syria’s civil war is gruesome and complex, but it is fundamentally a Civil War between Assad’s forces and a variety of opponents of Assad’s regime. It would be a mistake for Britain to base a case for military action against Isil on the hope that thousands of disparate rebel forces can be persuaded to change their enemy – especially when the evidence so far is that they won’t.

This is a plan for military action that, at present, looks highly unlikely to succeed.  But what of the plan for peace? David Cameron today argued for the separation of the immediate task at hand - to strike against Isil in Syria – from the longer-term ambition of achieving a settlement in Syria and removing Assad.  But for Isil to be beaten, the two cannot be separated. Because it is only by making progress in developing a credible and internationally-backed plan for a post-Assad Syria that we will persuade Syrian Sunnis that fighting Isil will not end up helping Assad win the Civil War.  If we want not only to rely on rebel Sunnis to provide ground troops against Isil, but also provide stable governance in Isil-occupied areas when the bombing stops, progress on a settlement to Syria’s Civil War is more not less urgent.  Without it, the reluctance of Syrian Sunnis to think that our fight is their fight will undermine the chances of military efforts to beat Isil and bring basic order to the regions they control. 

This points us towards doubling down on the progress that has already been made in Vienna: working with the USA, France, Syria’s neighbours and the Gulf states, as well as Russia and Iran. We need not just a combined approach to ending the conflict, but the prospect of a post-war Syria that offers a place for those whose cooperation we seek to defeat Isil. No doubt this will strike some as insufficient in the face of the horrors perpetrated by Isil. But I fear that if we want not just to take action against Isil but to defeat them and prevent their return, it offers a better chance of succeeding than David Cameron’s proposal today. 

Stewart Wood is a former Shadow Cabinet minister and adviser to Ed Miliband. He tweets as @StewartWood.