A stethoscope on a desk. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The NHS needs to change - but how?

When the NHS was founded, chronic illnesses and long-term care were non-issues. Adapting to the new reality means big changes are needed.

The backlash from NHS staff culminating #ImInWorkJeremy shows how carefully politicians need to tread when advocating reform of the NHS. But the pressing and urgent need for reform is going to intensify as this Parliament wears on.

Even with the extra £8bn of funding announced in George Osborne’s Budget earlier this month, the task facing Simon Stevens, Chief Executive of the NHS, is huge. The health service must find £22bn of efficiency savings over the next five years, an unprecedented target not just in terms of the NHS, but for any western health service.

Reform will have to sit at the heart of any plan to achieve this. Indeed, Stevens’ NHS Five Year Forward View sets out a range of reforms which will help us get there including the integration of health and social care and better use of new technologies. But crucial to the success of the Forward View will be the NHS’s ability to empower patients.

Patient empowerment has been an aim of the system for over fifteen years. But as more and more people suffer from complex long-term conditions the majority of care will occur not in the hospital or GP‘s surgery, but at home. By 2025 the number of people with complex long-term conditions will be more than 18 million. Patients and their family taking on the carers role will be the ones making the difficult decisions. If these decisions are good ones, demand on the service will go down. Get them wrong and it will increase. Indeed, the evidence suggests that around one in five emergency admissions to hospital are potentially preventable.

Existing empowerment initiatives – which Stevens’ NHS Five Year Forward View focus on – such as ‘voice’ and ‘choice’ won’t change this. They empower people only after or as they are entering the health service. New empowerment models being pioneered across the country create good health, rather than respond to ill health. These initiatives include giving doctors the ability to prescribe social rather than just medical treatments (cooking classes, gym memberships and community social groups), creating peer networks among those with similar chronic conditions, and working with patients to set technology enabled care plans, which help patients make decisions remotely and allow more flexible contact with healthcare professionals.  

The challenge now for the NHS is how to ensure that every patient who could benefit from these empowerment initiatives can have access to them. IPPR is recommending a transformation fund for the NHS – something backed up by recent work by the Health Foundation and the Kings Fund. This would help spread reform and prevent extra funding being used for steady-state or business as usual.

More money should also be passed over to patients directly in the form of personalised budgets, with patients holding the purse strings. At the moment, less than half a million people benefit from personal budgets but by 2020, IPPR argues that all patients with a long-term condition should be offered one.

And finally, more money and finance should be devolved to the local level. ‘Devo-Manc’ is a good start, but the government promised ‘devolution on demand’ and demand there is. Notably, the ten core cities - Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield, Cardiff and Glasgow – recently published ‘A Modern Charter for Local Freedom’ which expressed an interest in following suit. NHS England should start thinking about when and how it will meet this demand now: devolution of this kind can make care more responsive to local populations and should galvanise empowerment focussed reform.

These changes won’t be easy; but they are absolutely necessary. As Alan Milburn’s argues: “Tinkering with change will not save the NHS. It must stop treating patients as passive by-standers and instead enlist them as active agents of change.”

 

Harry Quilter-Pinner, co-author of Powerful Patients published by IPPR.

 

Photo: ASA
Show Hide image

Harmful gender stereotypes in ads have real impact – so we're challenging them

The ASA must make sure future generations don't recoil at our commercials.

July’s been quite the month for gender in the news. From Jodie Whittaker’s casting in Doctor Who, to trains “so simple even women can drive them”, to how much the Beeb pays its female talent, gender issues have dominated. 

You might think it was an appropriate time for the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to launch our own contribution to the debate, Depictions, Perceptions and Harm: a report on gender stereotypes in advertising, the result of more than a year’s careful scrutiny of the evidence base.

Our report makes the case that, while most ads (and the businesses behind them) are getting it right when it comes to avoiding damaging gender stereotypes, the evidence suggests that some could do with reigning it in a little. Specifically, it argues that some ads can contribute to real world harms in the way they portray gender roles and characteristics.

We’re not talking here about ads that show a woman doing the cleaning or a man the DIY. It would be most odd if advertisers couldn’t depict a woman doing the family shop or a man mowing the lawn. Ads cannot be divorced from reality.

What we’re talking about is ads that go significantly further by, for example, suggesting through their content and context that it’s a mum’s sole duty to tidy up after her family, who’ve just trashed the house. Or that an activity or career is inappropriate for a girl because it’s the preserve of men. Or that boys are not “proper” boys if they’re not strong and stoical. Or that men are hopeless at simple parental or household tasks because they’re, well...men.

Advertising is only a small contributor to gender stereotyping, but a contributor it is. And there’s ever greater recognition of the harms that can result from gender stereotyping. Put simply, gender stereotypes can lead us to have a narrower sense of ourselves – how we can behave, who we can be, the opportunities we can take, the decisions we can make. And they can lead other people to have a narrower sense of us too. 

That can affect individuals, whatever their gender. It can affect the economy: we have a shortage of engineers in this country, in part, says the UK’s National Academy of Engineering, because many women don’t see it as a career for them. And it can affect our society as a whole.

Many businesses get this already. A few weeks ago, UN Women and Unilever announced the global launch of Unstereotype Alliance, with some of the world’s biggest companies, including Proctor & Gamble, Mars, Diageo, Facebook and Google signing up. Advertising agencies like JWT and UM have very recently published their own research, further shining the spotlight on gender stereotyping in advertising. 

At the ASA, we see our UK work as a complement to an increasingly global response to the issue. And we’re doing it with broad support from the UK advertising industry: the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) – the industry bodies which author the UK Advertising Codes that we administer – have been very closely involved in our work and will now flesh out the standards we need to help advertisers stay on the right side of the line.

Needless to say, our report has attracted a fair amount of comment. And commentators have made some interesting and important arguments. Take my “ads cannot be divorced from reality” point above. Clearly we – the UK advertising regulator - must take into account the way things are, but what should we do if, for example, an ad is reflecting a part of society as it is now, but that part is not fair and equal? 

The ad might simply be mirroring the way things are, but at a time when many people in our society, including through public policy and equality laws, are trying to mould it into something different. If we reign in the more extreme examples, are we being social engineers? Or are we simply taking a small step in redressing the imbalance in a society where the drip, drip, drip of gender stereotyping over many years has, itself, been social engineering. And social engineering which, ironically, has left us with too few engineers.

Read more: Why new rules on gender stereotyping in ads benefit men, too

The report gave news outlets a chance to run plenty of well-known ads from yesteryear. Fairy Liquid, Shake 'n' Vac and some real “even a woman can open it”-type horrors from decades ago. For some, that was an opportunity to make the point that ads really were sexist back then, but everything’s fine on the gender stereotyping front today. That argument shows a real lack of imagination. 

History has not stopped. If we’re looking back at ads of 50 years ago and marvelling at how we thought they were OK back then, despite knowing they were products of their time, won’t our children and grandchildren be doing exactly the same thing in 50 years’ time? What “norms” now will seem antiquated and unpleasant in the future? We think the evidence points to some portrayals of gender roles and characteristics being precisely such norms, excused by some today on the basis that that’s just the way it is.

Our report signals that change is coming. CAP will now work on the standards so we can pin down the rules and official guidance. We don’t want to catch advertisers out, so we and CAP will work hard to provide as much advice and training as we can, so they can get their ads right in the first place. And from next year, we at the ASA will make sure those standards are followed, taking care that our regulation is balanced and wholly respectful of the public’s desire to continue to see creative ads that are relevant, entertaining and informative. 

You won’t see a sea-change in the ads that appear, but we hope to smooth some of the rougher edges. This is a small but important step in making sure modern society is better represented in ads.

Guy Parker is CEO of the ASA