[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=health+care+U.S.&iid=8921858″ src=”http://view1.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/8921858/pelosi-sebelius-discuss/pelosi-sebelius-discuss.jpg?size=500&imageId=8921858″ width=”380″ height=”254″ /]
The story is from today’s New York Times.
If you’d like to read the whole article, you can click the link above. Otherwise, I’ll be quoting the “sweeter” parts:
But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.
But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished. (emphasis mine)
In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would “cause significant disruption and loss of jobs.” But it said: “The current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.” (emphasis mine)
The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients. Currently, how and where patients are treated, and by whom, is largely determined by decisions made by 150 entities known as primary care trusts — all of which would be abolished under the plan, with some of those choices going to patients. It would also abolish many current government-set targets, like limits on how long patients have to wait for treatment.
But advocacy groups for general practitioners welcomed the proposals.
“One of the great attractions of this is that it will be able to focus on what local people need,” said Prof. Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, which represents about 40,000 of the 50,000 general practitioners in the country. “This is about clinicians taking responsibility for making these decisions.”
Ironic isn’t it? The British system, which has been held up as a model for us to emulate, and in fact has been trumpeted by President Obama’s newest controversial appointee as Medicare administrator, Donald Berwick, is being dumped. Britain is moving away from a failed health care system as we go careening forward. Oh goody.