Published: 01 August 2006
Amicus CPHVA welcomes critical ISTC report
Dave Arun reports that Amicus CPHVA has welcomed the recent Commons Health Select Committee report on ISTCs that raised serious doubts as to the ‘value for money’ aspects of the initiative and highlighted the potential harm it could do to Trusts already in financial difficulty.
Barrie Brown, Lead Officer for Nursing, Amicus Health Sector said:
“Amicus welcomes the Commons Health Select Committee findings.
The absence of evidence from the Department of Health on the ‘value for money’ offered by ISTC providers is an issue which Amicus raised in its submission to the committee.
We believe the committee is right to conclude that the ISTCs have not made a major direct contribution to increasing capacity.
Much - if not all - of the work undertaken by ISTCs could have been done by NHS treatment centres and other NHS providers.
The committee has commented on the £5 billion to be spent on the ISTC programme and questioned the impact of this on the viability of existing NHS providers.
We share that concern and can see no grounds for using public funds to undermine and diminish NHS providers who are successfully delivering the government's health agenda.
The committee has suggested that the principle of additionality has hindered integration between the NHS and ISTC providers.
We are not convinced of this and our oral evidence was quoted in the report where we commented on the risk to the health service of NHS staff being recruited to ISTCs.
In that evidence to the committee, I said: ‘If you are increasing capacity one thing we do not want to see is the risk of losing highly experienced qualified staff from the NHS to work in the ISTC where we are increasing capacity, but losing part o the NHS at the same time.’
The committee has concluded that it is difficult to assess the state of the Phase Two development of the ISTC programme.
This is absolutely the case and the committee's criticism of the Department of Health and the Secretary of State on the shift of fact and emphasis makes the case for slowing down or putting on hold the Phase Two ISTCs.
It is disappointing that the committee did not recommend that”.
Readers who received The Source’s 26th July newsletter will already be aware of some of the Committee’s highly critical statements.
In that, we quoted the following:
We were surprised that the Department made no attempt systematically to assess and quantify the effect of competition from ISTCs on the NHS…………….
A number of concerns were raised about the ISTC programme by the professional medical bodies and others. There were concerns that ISTCs were poorly integrated into the NHS and that they were not training doctors. These concerns are well-founded………….
There are also real concerns that the expansion of the ISTC programme will destabilise local NHS trusts, especially those with financial deficits……………
However, Amicus CPHVA are not alone in adding to the tide of criticism that is washing over this particular New Labour initiative.
The King’s Fund has also published a statement, which includes the following extract:
King’s Fund chief executive Niall Dickson commented saying that it is a matter for concern that the Department of Health has embarked on a major initiative with clear objectives but without sound mechanisms for measuring whether and how they are achieved.
When one takes into account the fact that we are talking about a £5bn expenditure programme, it does appear to be a matter of grave concern.
One would have thought that the government would have learnt its lesson from previous health initiatives that have ‘swallowed’ billions of pounds of new investment without apparently providing a commensurate ‘return’.
The real issue is not the fact that billions could / are being wasted, but that it will be NHS staff who are made to pay the price for ‘overspends’ by being made redundant and/or newly trained clinical staff who will find recruitment is frozen.
Further information
CPHVA website
To find a business you can trust, click on the related categories below: