Jill Palmer – Prescriptions
WILL it be third time lucky for the Government in its attempts to improve the health of the nation? Almost seven years ago, in March 2001, it announced free “health MOTs”. The health check schemes launched by then public health minister Yvette Cooper for people aged 50 to 65 included checks and advice on blood pressure, fitness levels, diet and screening. The aim was to detect people at risk and so prevent illness and improve health. At a cost of around £800,000, three pilot programmes were set up. They are still flourishing locally in north Nottinghamshire, Hull & East Riding and Sandwell in the West Midlands.
Two years ago, in January 2006, the Government again announced free “health MOTs”. This time, the health checks, unveiled by then Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, would be even more far-reaching and offered to everyone throughout England and Wales at five pivotal points in their lives. Once again, the aim was to detect people at risk and so prevent illness and improve health.
Last month, the Government announced free “health MOTs” for a third time. The Prime Minister himself made the announcement and once again it was even more far-reaching than on the previous occasion. The national testing scheme would test for everyone’s vulnerability to debilitating and life-threatening conditions, such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes and kidney disease. As before, the aim is to detect people at risk, prevent illness and improve health. Gordon Brown pledged: “Over time, everyone in England will have access to the right preventative health check-up.”
Perhaps this time the political rhetoric will be translated into reality. It could certainly save lives. Overall, 6.3 million people are affected each year by the conditions being targeted and 200,000 die. One in five people in hospital suffer from such diseases.
But are the Government’s plans really feasible? Have the practical considerations been properly thought-out? Does the National Health Service have sufficient funds, not just to pay for the testing, but also for treating all the extra patients it would detect? In the long term, it would be cost effective, as many chronic and costly diseases would be prevented. But, in the short term, it would be extremely expensive. And NHS budgets don’t take account of the long term, because governments can’t plan in the long term – only until the next general election.
Does the NHS have enough staff with sufficient time to carry out the tests? Do GPs spend their time treating the sick or testing the healthy?
What happens if the results show someone is at high risk? Does the NHS have the facilities to treat them? It is no good telling someone they are at risk of a stroke if you don’t have the staff, time or money to do something about it.
Most importantly, would the people they are targeted at ever take the tests or would it be the worried well queuing up at the local GP’s surgery? Would it be those people who look to take exercise, eat healthily and look after themselves who would want the tests “just to make sure”?
Sadly, it is a fact of life that many of those most at risk don’t want to know it. Everyone knows that smoking kills, just as everyone knows that lack of exercise and an unhealthy diet cause disease and early death. Yet people still smoke, eat insufficient fruit and vegetables and are still couch potatoes.
Why? It’s because they have very little in their lives to be optimistic about and very little to strive for. If you’ve had a poor education, live in poor housing and have poor employment prospects, why would you want to be told that you will have a heart attack if you don’t change your lifestyle dramatically? You probably know that already, but you don’t want a doctor confirming it.
The only way to make people live healthier lives is to make their lives worth living, give them something to strive for and be positive about. All that starts with a good education – which is sadly lacking for so many people today.
BACK on the subject of Patricia Hewitt, I am sure I echo the feelings of many Tribune readers when I express my disgust at her new job with a company that boasts on its website of its “unrivalled expertise in the independent hospital sector”.
Hewitt obviously gained insider knowledge of the workings of the Department of Health and its privatisation by stealth of the NHS during her two years as Secretary of State from May 2005 to June 2007. She must know the future plans involving further integration of the private sector into the health service. Even more useful to a private hospital owner, she must know how the system works and be on first name terms with all the relevant influential people.
So Hewitt is likely to be a valuable asset to Cinven, the private equity company which has employed her as a “senior advisor”. She obviously wasn’t taken on the staff because of her brilliance as Health Secretary, so it must be for her knowledge of DoH workings.
Cinven bought BUPA’s 25 British hospitals for £1.4 billion last year. The company also owns Partnerships in Care, Britain’s leading provider of specialist mental health and related services.
When it bought BUPA’s hospitals, Cinven partner Simon Rowlands said: “The group will be seeking new sources of revenue… working in partnership with the NHS.” A month later, Cinven bought USP Hospitales, the leading independent operator in the Spanish healthcare market for £462 million.
The NHS is now willing to pay for treatment abroad “if you need treatment that is not available on the NHS or cannot be given in the time necessary, given your state of health”. That could mean another bonus for Cinven as a result of having Hewitt on its team.
Surely she must have realised how immoral this new contract appears to the public? Why couldn’t she get an unrelated job like former Health Secretary John Reid who has become chairman of Celtic Football Club?
Why should MPs have jobs on the side anyway? Shouldn’t being an MP be a full-time job?
About The Author
