NAVCA has issued a six point test for local Healthwatch to make sure they are genuine grassroots bodies. To pass the six point test, the Government needs to amend the Health and Social Care Bill so that local Healthwatch organisations are not ‘statutory bodies’, which would create over 150 new local quangos.

Editors of three leading healthcare publications have warned that the NHS will need another overhaul in five years and they call for a public debate on its future to “salvage some good” from the government’s “damaging” reforms.

While a second BMJ editorial says that abandoning the Health and Social Care Bill now would save just over £1 billion in 2013.

In an editorial published simultaneously by the BMJ, Health Service Journal and Nursing Times, their editors say the NHS “is far too important to be left at the mercy of ideological and incompetent intervention” and argue “we must make sure that nothing like this ever happens again”.

As part of this process, they suggest parliament should now establish an independently appointed standing commission “to initiate a mature and informed national discussion on the future of our national health system”.

Although health professional groups differ in their stance on the bill, “there can be no doubting the overwhelming sense of distress and lack of confidence in the government’s plans among those who must deliver the service,” they write.

BMJ Editor Fiona Godlee, HSJ editor Alastair McLellan and Nursing Times editor Jenni Middleton argue that “through a combination of poor political judgement and reluctance to engage with criticism, a set of (mostly) reasonable objectives morphed into an old fashioned top down reorganisation. It also resulted in a bloated and opaque piece of legislation, whose goals could have largely been achieved by other, more effective, means”.

Once the bill becomes law, they believe that “we will still be in the dark about how much of the new system will work” and “we will have an unstable system that is only partially fit for purpose”. They also warn that “another major NHS reform programme is guaranteed within five years”.

It is possible, the three health editors say, to feel sorry for Lansley when – after years of being told that politicians should get out of the NHS – his proposals to loosen the health secretary’s grip on the service were thrown back in his face. But, they argue “those proposals were poorly thought through, and the government amendment restoring his responsibility for the NHS has failed to reassure some critics.”

So what lessons can we learn from this debacle, they ask?

Rather than relying on policy makers to build brave new worlds in back rooms, “we need a broad public debate on the principles that should underpin the NHS, how decisions on priorities should be made in a cash-limited system, and what role clinicians and private sector organisations could and should play”. This debate will require restraint on behalf of all involved, they add, if it is to escape being characterised yet again by polarised views, (often disguised) vested interest, political point scoring and conspiracy theories to the benefit of none.

The editors conclude: “Let us try to salvage some good from this damaging upheaval and resolve never to repeat it”.

In a second BMJ editorial published today, Kieran Walshe, Professor of Health Policy and Management at Manchester Business School says that abandoning the Health and Social Care Bill now would save just over £1 billion in 2013.

Dropping the bill now would also put an end to the prolonged and damaging period of organisational uncertainty in the NHS and would allow NHS organisations to focus on improving efficiency and productivity, and sustaining performance in the face of years of financial austerity, he argues.

Although politically painful, Walshe suggests the government could argue that, in the special economic circumstances of the day, it makes sense to drop the bill, and that they have already made the substantial savings in NHS administrative costs they promised. They might get some credit from the media and the public for listening and learning, but they would also neutralise an issue which has become increasingly politically toxic for them, he adds.

"They could then plan to accomplish much of their intended reform agenda – greater patient choice, more GP involvement in commissioning, increased plurality and competition in healthcare provision – using existing legislative provisions," he concludes. "And the NHS could get on with delivering healthcare to patients, and the serious business of finding ways to do more with less".

Contacts:

Fiona Godlee, Editor-in-Chief, BMJ - This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Alastair McLellan, Editor, Health Service Journal - This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Jenni Middleton, Editor, Nursing Times - This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Kieran Walshe, Professor of Health Policy and Management, Manchester Business School, Manchester, UK - This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

The Government’s first ever national cancer campaign to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of bowel cancer is launched today.

Public awareness of the symptoms of bowel cancer is low. But spotting the signs early and getting medical advice could save people’s lives.

Further details on the establishment of local HealthWatch bodies, including a new start date and extra funding, have been set out by Health Minister Andrew Lansley.

Following feedback from local authorities and Local Involvement Networks, they now have until April 2013 to work with local health experts and volunteers to establish the local HealthWatch. The new local health bodies are set to replace Local Involvement Networks and will be the local consumer champion for patients, service users and the public.

The majority of patients visiting their dentist would like to be checked for mouth cancer, the results of a new survey have revealed.

The findings showed that 88 per cent of patients would like to be checked for the disease. Despite the public's desire to be checked for cancer, only one in seven people (14 per cent) indicated their dentist had explained the risks and symptoms of mouth cancer to them.

The British Dental Health Foundation estimates that around 90 per cent of dentists regularly check for mouth cancer, but only a small percentage discusses the issue directly with their patients.