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.
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.