Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Health Inequalities’ Category

By Ben Barr, Senior Lecturer in Applied Public Health Research, University of Liverpool, and Lee Bentley, Research Associate, University of Liverpool

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is due to deliver this year’s Budget on Wednesday. It is imperative that he provides additional financial support for disabled people affected by the planned cuts to Employment Support Allowance (ESA) – or risk further widening the disability–poverty gap.

One in three working age disabled people are living in poverty. Their risk of poverty is one and a half times greater than for people without a disability. The government’s strategy, however, for improving the lives of disabled people, focuses almost exclusively on the disability-employment gap rather than this disability-poverty gap (1). It is true that the high risk of poverty amongst disabled people is largely because they are less likely to be in work and supporting people into employment is an important strategy for reducing poverty. Welfare benefits, however, also play a crucial role in preventing poverty by limiting the loss of income people experience when they can’t work due to disability.

People who have lost their jobs because of a disability are likely to be out of work for longer than people who become unemployed. For this reason, disability benefits have generally been set at a higher level than unemployment benefits. From April, this will no longer be the case. The government is reducing the level of ESA for disabled people who are assessed as being currently unable to work but potentially capable of work at some time in the future. The benefit will be reduced by 30% to £73 a week – the same level as unemployment benefits. But whilst 60% of new claimants of unemployment benefits will move off the benefit within six months, 60% of people on ESA will still be claiming this benefit two years later (2). This means that many people out of work because of a disability will have to survive for long periods of time without an adequate income.

Levels of poverty are already very high amongst people out of work with a disability and have been increasing since 2010, particularly amongst people who have a low level of education – the group most reliant on disability benefits (see Figure 1). Cutting these benefits will exacerbate this adverse trend.

Percentage of people with disability in poverty

FIGURE 1: % of people with a disability in poverty, aged 16-64, between 2007 and 2014, by employment status and educational level 

The government argues that reducing these benefit levels will incentivise disabled people to stay in or return to work (3), but there is little evidence to support this assumption (4), and some that suggests it may reduce their employment chances (2). Strategies to reduce the disability-employment gap over recent decades have increasingly focused on more stringent assessment criteria for disability benefits, reduced payment levels and requiring claimants to do more to prepare for work or risk losing their benefits (5, 6, 7). These strategies have had little impact on the employment of people with disabilities (8). It remains to be seen whether the government’s new strategy to halve the disability employment gap will be any more successful (1).

Even if the government’s strategy does improve the employment of disabled people, it is likely this will disproportionally benefit disabled people with greater skills and education (9, 10). The planned cuts in ESA will increase the risk of poverty for the most disadvantaged disabled people who remain out of work, and this may increase the disability-poverty gap.

Increasing poverty amongst people out of work with disabilities will adversely affect their health and increase health inequalities. We know that poverty damages peoples’ health, and adequate welfare benefits for people who can’t work can reduce these effects (11). We have seen that in recent years inequalities in health are increasing (12) in part due to disability benefit reforms (13). The severe cut planned by the government will further exacerbate these inequalities, potentially increasing levels of disability.

1    Great Britain, Department for Work and Pensions, Great Britain, Department of Health. Improving Lives: The Work, Health and Disability Green Paper. 2016 (accessed March 2, 2017).
2    Work and Pensions Committee. Disability employment gap. London: House of Commons, 2017 (accessed March 2, 2017).
3    Kenedy S, Murphy C, Keen K, Bate A. Abolition of the ESA Work- Related Activity Component. House Commons Libr Brief Pap 2017.
4    Barr B, Clayton S, Whitehead M, et al. To what extent have relaxed eligibility requirements and increased generosity of disability benefits acted as disincentives for employment? A systematic review of evidence from countries with well-developed welfare systems. J Epidemiol Community Health 2010; 64: 1106–14.
5    Watts B, Fitzpatrick S, Bramley G, Watkins D. WELFARE SANCTIONS AND CONDITIONALITY IN THE UK. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2015.
6    Banks J, Emmerson C, Tetlow GC. Effect of Pensions and Disability Benefits on Retirement in the UK. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014 (accessed Sept 26, 2015).
7    Baumberg B, Warren J, Garthwaite K, Bambra C. Rethinking the Work Capability Assessment. London: Demos, 2015.
8    Mirza-Davies J, Brown J. Key statistics on people with disabilities in employment. House Commons Libr Brief Pap 2016; 7540.
9    Burstrom B, Nylen L, Clayton S, Whitehead M. How equitable is vocational rehabilitation in Sweden? A review of evidence on the implementation of a national policy framework. Disabil Rehabil 2011; 33: 453–66.
10    Clayton S, Bambra C, Gosling R, Povall S, Misso K, Whitehead M. Assembling the evidence jigsaw: insights from a systematic review of UK studies of individual-focused return to work initiatives for disabled and long-term ill people. BMC Public Health 2011; 11: 170.
11    Cooper K, Stewart K. Does money in adulthood affect adult outcomes? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2015 (accessed July 30, 2015).
12    Barr B, Kinderman P, Whitehead M. Trends in mental health inequalities in England during a period of recession, austerity and welfare reform 2004 to 2013. Soc Sci Med 2015; 147: 324–31.
13    Barr B, Taylor-Robinson D, Stuckler D, Loopstra R, Reeves A, Whitehead M. ‘First, do no harm’: are disability assessments associated with adverse trends in mental health? A longitudinal ecological study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2015; : jech-2015-206209.

Read Full Post »

By Dr Nadeem Hasan

The importance of effective advocacy to achieving public health goals cannot be overstated.
Every day policies and regulations that affect health outcomes for better or worse are put on the agenda and kept off the agenda; discussed and debated; approved and rejected.

Many, if not most of these relate primarily to non-health sectors, such as food and beverages, energy and infrastructure, and alcohol and tobacco. But their impact on health outcomes is very real: all the stop-smoking programmes in the world can’t match the impact of the ban on advertising and smoking in public places on smoking prevalence; and there’s no amount of spending on childhood obesity programmes that can make up for the regulatory vacuum in this area.

Looking more broadly, policy decisions that affect income inequality, carbon emissions, and military action all have serious consequences for health across the world.

If we’re serious about prevention, we need to be serious about advocacy.
Where profits can be affected (almost everywhere), industry lobbyists seek to influence the regulatory environment in their favour. And they are very good at it. In principle, this is quite right – those affected by policy and regulatory shifts should indeed be able to make representations and provide additional evidence to support the decision-making process – and this includes relevant industry actors.
Representing the interests of everybody else is where advocacy organisations come in – acting as sort of ‘civil society lobbyists’ to balance out the discussion – advocating on behalf of the health, wellbeing, and broader concerns of the general population. Notably, this isn’t always an ‘us vs. them’ relationship: health insurance companies are routinely allies on advocating for lower drug prices; and renewable energy companies are more than happy to work with advocacy organisations on climate change regulation.

Put this way, it might sound like a fair playing field, with decision-makers receiving submissions from a range of groups and making balanced decisions to maximise the benefits to all parties. The reality of course is quite different, and much, much messier.
In 2014, there were an estimated 30,000 industry lobbyists in Brussels alone, falling just short of the 31,000 employees for the whole European Commission.

Civil society pockets are not deep enough to come close to matching this (or the salaries of lobbyists), and civil society advocacy and pressure groups are few and far between. Transparency falls short of the ideal, and the revolving door between policy-making and industry remains alive and well. Most recently the former President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso was appointed Chairman of Goldman Sachs International, a move that has been widely criticised.
Advocacy organisations, then, have a difficult task – but one where even small successes can have far-reaching benefits for public health.
The European Public Health Alliance (EPHA), based in Brussels, is one such advocacy organisation. They bring together a range of health-related NGOs to advocate for better public health in Europe, working across five campaign areas: antimicrobial resistance; food, drink and agriculture; healthy economic policy; universal access and affordable medicines; and trade for health (and specifically the EU-US free trade agreement – TTIP – and the EU-Canada free trade agreement – CETA). Earlier this year, they hosted myself and another registrar in a pilot placement to understand health advocacy at the European level and to develop skills in this area.
So how to sum up the placement?
Invaluable. EPHA track the policy process for each one of their campaign areas and engage at every possible point. They attend every meeting at the European Parliament and the European Commission on these areas and make oral contributions at every opportunity; they submit comprehensive written responses to every relevant consultation; they engage on a daily basis with journalists to publicise their positions and build public support; they engage like-minded actors in the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors on a case-by-case basis to coordinate action; and they do all of this with just a handful of relatively young staff and interns.

They were very welcoming in bringing us into the whole process, allowing me to engage in every one of these steps – from writing position papers and consultation responses to making oral contributions at the European Commission and Parliament on their behalf.
Notably, EPHA also position themselves as an advocacy agency that actors from across the spectrum can engage with – in contrast to, for example, much more vocal organisations such as Greenpeace.

By way of example, the area that I was working on was TTIP. Whilst there are a raft of advocacy organisations across Europe (and the USA) that reject TTIP outright, EPHA’s

approach is to work through the whole agreement and advocate for the protection of public health on a section-by-section basis without rejecting the whole deal. With the European Commission politically committed to getting a deal, this makes EPHA one of the few organisations they can meaningfully engage with on this issue (though recent developments have called into question the likelihood of getting a deal in the near future).

This isn’t to say that their approach is ‘superior’ – every actor plays a particular role, with the more intransigent organisations key in shifting public opinion and providing the space for actors such as EPHA to engage in more balanced discussions. This means that they are invited to closed-door sessions with only a handful of actors, and have much more influence on the process than they otherwise would.
One of the challenges from a ‘public health professional’ perspective was that effective advocacy sometimes involves taking – shall we say – a less balanced view than we would normally as technical experts. From an ethical perspective, this raises a number of questions around whether the ends justify the means. I witnessed first-hand industry lobbyists making quite outrageous claims, including a rather undignified moment where I coughed up half my glass of water in a large auditorium at the European Commission when it was submitted that ‘alcohol is in no way an unhealthy commodity’ .

In a world where climate change denial is alive and well despite the most overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the ‘best’ approach to making our points is perhaps not so easy to discern.
And what of the relevance to the UK, particularly as we now start closing our doors to the EU in a bid to be a more open, global-facing country?
Whether or not the UK is a member, the EU remains a powerful actor that can influence policies related to public health both for its own citizens (which will still number ~450m after the UK leaves), and globally. As a close neighbour, EU regulations will have a strong bearing on public health in the UK too, and so engaging in advocacy at this level will continue to be an effective approach to improving UK public health.

This is true for everything from environmental regulations and air pollution, to pharmaceutical regulations and drug pricing and safety.
Within the UK, whilst it’s true that our policy-making process is not as amenable to advocacy as at the EU level (or remotely as civilised), effective advocacy still has huge potential to improve public health. We have not done well recently, with a watered-down childhood obesity strategy, no resistance to an unfunded ‘7-day’ NHS (that differs from the 7-day NHS that has existed since 1948 in some undefined way), and year-on-year increases in the use of food banks without any policy response (to name just three areas).

At the local level, there are a cornucopia of opportunities for advocacy to improve health, from influencing urban planning (fast food outlets close to schools, street design, cycling lanes) to advocacy around shifting public perceptions e.g. from opposing to welcoming refugees into local communities.
In this context, strengthening the advocacy skills of the UK public health workforce through engaging with and learning from experienced actors such as EPHA should be pursued with vigour – we can ill afford the alternative.

Dr Nadeem Hasan is a Specialty Registrar in Public Health

 

Read Full Post »

vitamin-d

By Dr Amrita Jesurasa

Ever since our most ancient ancestors left Africa to populate the rest of the world the appearance of their descendants has changed.

Height, facial features, hair type, body size and shape, and invisible genes that can protect from or predispose to disease have developed and differentiated racial groups. But the most profound (and superficial) change has to be in the colour of our skin as people migrated and settled around the world.

Skin colour forms a strong part of our physical and social identity, at times unifying people but more distressingly, causing division. The legacy of this evolutionary change has left its scars on human history in the last few hundred years and continues to cause tension in the present. Ethnic inequalities in health are well recognised and yet we perhaps fail to recognise the true message from history: why did skin colour change?

Current theory suggests that this phenomenon arose as a result of our need for vitamin D. As our early ancestors migrated to northern latitudes, they experienced the severe consequences of vitamin D deficiency. These included bone deformities that affected their ability to walk, breathe and – crucially – to give birth (the latter the result of changes to the female pelvis).

In Europe, natural selection began to favour lighter skin that allowed ultraviolet radiation to be more readily absorbed, vitamin D to be synthesised and ultimately our species to survive in Europe and other northern climes.

Fast-forward to the 21st century and rapid technological advances have transformed the way we live. Some of these developments, including air travel, have facilitated evolutionary shortcuts, enabling the humans of today to live in environments that are totally different to that of even the previous generation. But other advances have affected the behaviour of us all by encouraging a more indoor lifestyle than that of our ancestors, creating fear of the adverse effects of the sun and altering our dietary habits.

This perfect storm has allowed vitamin D deficiency to become a population-wide issue, but one which has the greatest impact on those with darker skin. The irony is that this disproportionate effect within the population marginalises the issue of vitamin D deficiency, creating an ethnicity-related health inequality.

To raise the profile of vitamin D deficiency, universal issues need to be addressed and universal solutions provided. While improving access to vitamin D supplements must be part of this strategy, there are worrying common pitfalls associated with an exclusively medical approach.

Instead, a simple message may resonate more with both the public and policy-makers. This could mean promoting a basic principle that “like plants, we need food, water and sunshine to thrive”. With a more holistic approach we can relate prevention of vitamin D deficiency to other important and well-recognised public health concerns, thereby raising the priority of this historically important issue.

  • Dr Jesurasa is a Specialty Registrar in Public Health Medicine/ Honorary Clinical Lecturer in Public Health, University of Sheffield

Read Full Post »

by Paul Southon

  • Public Health Development Manager
  • UK Healthy Cities Network Local Coordinator

Welfare reform is a reality. Reviews of the likely health impacts suggest that they will be significant, are starting now and will last for a generation. (1) (2)

Work to quantify the financial implications for local areas shows that the financial impact will be disproportionately felt by the areas with the largest health inequalities. (3) There is also evidence that the impacts on already disadvantaged sections of communities – such as disabled people, black and minority ethnic groups and women – will be disproportionate. (4) (5)

All of this is happening at a time of major reductions in budgets and staffing across the public sector which limits the local ability to respond. This has been described as a perfect storm for local government. It will also have significant impacts across health services.

Over the longer term there is likely to be an increase in mental health problems, non-communicable diseases and related disabilities which will be felt across the health and social care system. Increasing poverty, especially child poverty, will have long term and generational impacts on child development, health outcomes and life expectancy.

GPs are reporting an increase in people with mental health problems. They are also reporting increasing numbers of requests for support with appeals against Work Capability Assessment decisions and the changes to disability benefits.

Currently the most visible part of the welfare reforms is the spare room subsidy or ‘bedroom tax’. Families on housing benefit who are defined as having extra bedrooms suffer a financial penalty. There is a severe shortage of available smaller properties for these families to move into. Their options are to move into the private rented sector, which may be more expensive, or stay where they are with a reduced income. Families are also moving to areas with lower rents, losing their social and support networks.

Councils are already reporting increases in rent arrears.(6)It is likely that this will lead to increased stress and family tensions, which could be exacerbated by the loss of social and support networks. A concern is that these families will resort to using alternative lenders, such as pay day loans, to cover shortfalls. One payday loan company has recently increased its typical APR to 5,835%.

For families experiencing poverty food becomes a major problem, both in access to enough food and in the quality of the food available. The rapid rise in food banks is testament to the difficulty families have in buying food. (7)

They also have to rely on the cheapest food which is often poor in nutrition and high in fats, including trans-fats. With the current food environment eating healthily is not a cheap option.

So, welfare reform is a reality. The evidence suggests that it is likely to have a major negative impact on public health and inequalities. It is now time to ask the key question: What can local areas do about it and what is the role of public health?

Much of the focus in councils has been on setting up the local systems to manage what were previously national benefit systems, the social and crisis fund payments and council tax benefits. Now these are operational the wider impacts of the reforms are being considered.

Many councils are mapping the local impact of welfare reforms to better understand the local challenges. (8) However, the scope to tackle these challenges at a local level is limited.

One of the stated aims of the welfare reforms is to encourage people into work. This is a laudable aim. Supporting someone into good quality work is a major public health win. The main way to reduce the numbers of people reliant on benefits will be to increase local employment.

However, increasing local employment is challenging in the areas where welfare reform will have the largest impact. Many of these areas have poor levels of educational attainment. Much of the available employment is low paid and insecure. A recent report estimates the local financial impact.

For example, Sandwell will lose around £119 million from the economy each year resulting in less money spent within the local economy, affecting local business and resulting in fewer local jobs.

With the limited scope for minimising the impacts of welfare reform at a local level it is essential that the most is made of local resources. This will need joined up working across councils, health, voluntary and community sectors and local businesses.

Public health has a role in raising awareness of the changes and the health impacts across all parts of the council and partners. It can also support the mapping and analysis of local impact, helping identify the local priorities for action and ensuring local plans are evidence based and monitored effectively.

Welfare reform is here, it comes with a real risk of significant negative impacts on health and inequalities at both local and national levels. Public health in councils needs to recognise this and ensure that it is fully involved in local efforts to minimise these impacts. At a regional and national level public health must lobby for changes to policy to protect population health and the disproportionate effects on the most vulnerable.

(1)Institute of Health Equity (2012). The impact of the economic downturn and policy changes on health inequalities in London.

(3) Beatty C, Fothergill S. Hitting the poorest places hardest: the local and regional impact of welfare reform. Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research. 2013

(4) Oxfam GB. (2010) A gender perspective on 21st century welfare reform.

(5) Welsh Government. (2013) Analysing the impact of the UK Government’s welfare reforms in Wales – Stage 3 analysis.

(6) Inside Housing (2013) Rent arrears up in wake of bedroom tax.

(7) Trussel Trust (2013) Increasing numbers turning to food banks since April’s welfare reforms.

(8) Sandwell Trends: Welfare Reform Topic Page (2013).

Read Full Post »

Does Local Healthwatch offer a fresh start for democratic accountability in healthcare, or more of the same structural problems that lead to tokenism and a lack of inability to have real influence? This was the question at the heart of the debate about democratic accountability at the 2012 FPH conference. The workshop was chaired by Professor Mark Gamsu of Leeds Metropolitan University, who specialises in tackling health inequality through strong citizens, local government and the voluntary sector.

Mark talked about how government policy often focuses on the ‘manual’, or process of delivery, rather than outcomes and impact. He – partly in jest – apologised for his part in the inclusion of Joint Strategic Needs Assessments as a duty in the Health and Social Care Act, because in his view it is only a tool – and tools should not be legislated for. It might have been better to have a duty requiring local strategies and commissioning to be based on local intelligence. There is also a tendency for all new governments to assume they are starting from a ‘year zero’ positionand therefore a danger that the achievements and experience of the present and past is not recognised and built on sufficiently.

Mark looked at the challenges and opportunities offered by Local Healthwatch, which launches in April 2013 and will take on the work of the Local Involvement Networks (LINks). Healthwatch and public health are potential allies. They share some characteristics, not least because they are both comparatively small and achieve much of their impact using evidence to influence change.

This led to lively discussion of what drives commissioners, and the kind of leadership that can be expected to make the new systems work effectively once they take effect in 2013.
This will have a direct effect on what Healthwatch can realistically achieve, given that its lack of statutory powers mean it could face the same problems of tokenism and inability to effect change that have affected LINks.

There a was both positive and negative experience among delegates, who included commissioners and current LINks members, about how likely it was that Healthwatch could have the necessary influence to hold local services to account. As one LINks member put it, very few people in his area had heard of the service, or knew what it did.

There is also a tendency for all new governments to assume they are starting from a ‘year zero’ position, so that new systems are required regardless of how well the existing ones are working or how much time and effort is put into reorganising systems.

Public health: from transition to transformation

Reorganising health systems is not always a good use of resources: Mark Gamsu

This led to lively discussion of what drives commissioners, and the kind of leadership that can be expected to make the new systems work effectively once they take effect in 2013.

This will have a direct effect on what Healthwatch can realistically achieve, given that its lack of statutory powers mean it could face the same problems of tokenism and inability to effect change that have affected LINks. There a was both positive and negative experience among delegates, who included commissioners and current LINks members, about how likely it was that Healthwatch could have the necessary influence to hold local services to account. As one LINks member put it, very few people in his area had heard of the service, or knew what it did.

Mark gave an example of how important it is that information reaches the people who need it. Sheffield Mental Health Citizens Advice Bureau gives advice to patients on mental health wards, helping to bring the outside world into an institutional setting.

Ultimately, Healthwatch’s success matters for public health professionals because without local accountability for health services, there is a risk that health inequalities will be increased. Healthwatch’s success will be measured in part by how complaints are heard and acted on. With the final report from the Staffordshire public enquiry due in October, there is still much to be learnt about how statutory bodies act on the information they receive.

Read Full Post »

by Daria Kuznetsova, researcher,  New Local Government Network (NLGN)

Local government is once again a major player in the health arena. With a new public health duty and a leading role to play in the new Health and Wellbeing Boards (HWBs), councils have an opportunity to generate much greater efficiency and effectiveness.

Moreover, as this is the first time clinicians, politicians and local government officers have come together, there is a once in a lifetime opportunity to rethink and redefine preventative health interventions to radically improve the health outcomes of the local population. In a recent research report, we began to map out how local government could take up the role of the ‘health improving council’ implied by the recent reforms.

The new arrangements will certainly create opportunities, and there are reasons for optimism: among those involved in the agenda, our research reveals a relatively high degree of confidence (3.85 out of 5) in HWBs. However, it is already evident that creating stronger relationships across an increasingly complex health and social care sector will not be without its challenges. Sixty six per cent of survey respondents said that organisational differences were the most significant factor which might limit the effectiveness of their HWB.

Organisational divisions and territorialism in decision-making and budget-setting will be particularly problematic, particularly where hard choices have to be made to divert limited resources from existing services to new priorities. To encourage honesty in these ‘difficult conversations’,  we recommend HWBs design ‘prenuptial agreements’ illustrating the commitment and contribution each board member is prepared to make to the board.

The effectiveness of HWBs will depend on their ability to engage with a wide variety of external stakeholders, which they can influence only indirectly. However as local government only has soft powers at their disposal, there is a danger of public health not being prioritised by other local agencies.

We propose legislating a “duty to cooperate” with HWBs, similar to that in the Localism Act 2011, for public bodies. We further propose the HWB chair should have a ‘call in’ power to local authority departments commissioning services (for example in relation to the use of CIL) to ensure local authority delivery takes the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy into account.

At the heart of the changes lies an opportunity for a new era of public involvement in health services and prevention. By engaging residents, particularly ‘hard to reach’ groups, HWBs will be able to design interventions that meet immediate needs but also reduce demand in the long term. To ensure public engagement is prioritised, we recommend that HWBS should publish an explicit strategy for public involvement in their work.

Our research found that budget pooling is seen as the most effective tool available to ensure effectiveness of HWBs.  However 94 per cent of respondents felt that central government has provided insufficient incentives for integrated working. If local authorities are to succeed in reducing demand for acute services, they will need to shift resources to prioritise preventative measures. We suggest government should create “Health and Wellbeing Deals” whereby HWBs bring forward plans for pooling in exchange for the removal of regulatory or legal barriers to pooling as well as potential top-up funding for pooled budgets from central government.

The reforms in public health offer a real opportunity to reshape public services and drive preventative healthcare into everything local authorities do. However without tougher power for HWBs, they risk becoming a talking shop. We therefore strongly urge the government to legislate for a small number of hard, statutory powers which could turbo charge the new boards and ensure the emergence of a new generation of health improving councils.

Read Full Post »

by John Middleton, Vice-President of the Faculty of Public Health

The results of our latest member survey show despair, uncertainty and distress about the NHS reforms. We share members’ anger and frustration, reflected in feedback from local boards and committees. The results articulate the possibility of a wholesale departure from the specialty and major risks to the protection and improvement of the public’s health and the services they receive.

Wordcloud: Adjusted responses (phrases/themed/categorized), first 200 responses (max 50 phrases)

Credit: Andrew Hood, using wordle.net

Wordcloud: Adjusted responses (phrases/themed/categorised), from the first 200 responses in the survey (maximum 50 phrases)

As peers continue to debate the reforms, attitudes of public health professionals, and FPH’s leadership, are hardening. Faced with a government which does not seem to value professionalism or standards, it is essential that we continue to fight for the standards, accreditation and regulation of public health. No-one else will – and our partners in the public health national lobby agree with our stance.

Members have broadly supported this direction of travel – until now.  The ignorance and disregard in high places of what public health is and has done over 40 years in the NHS is alarming. FPH continues to hold a strong expectation for:
•    An independent and robust Public Health England;
•    A coherent career and training structure for public health professionals;
•    Protection of terms and conditions of staff;
•    Directors of public health reporting to chief executives of councils,
•    Clarity in the size and applications of the ring fenced budget and
•    Professional regulation for all public health specialists.

These issues were met with welcome support in the House of Lords committee stage.  However, a substantial cadre of our members believe that the public health community must campaign more explicitly against the likely negative health impacts if the reforms go through unchecked.

The Secretary of State has had a duty to ‘provide and secure’ the NHS since it began.   NHS planning has historically relied on regulations and guidance, not legislation.  This enables the NHS to move forward if the Secretary of State is in charge. If not, every line of the Health Bill becomes crucial.

Hard-pressed local authorities will only do what they must by law CCGs also will only do what they are required to do in law. The health system becomes a giant free-for-all; everyone doing the least possible, or the most lucrative and pocketing taxpayers’ cash. Some services may be deemed ‘bad business decisions’ and not be provided.

Where will these be without the Secretary of State’s duty to secure? This is a health insurance versus public health model. It calls into question the ideal of public service with which most of our members entered the NHS. Everyone in public health and health service users should be concerned about that.

As part of this debate, we have invited a range of organisations to contribute to this blog.  It remains open for members’ comments and more formal critiques. We look forward to your contributions here and through your local board members and FLACS.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »