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: 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.