Today Brent Patient Voice sent off to the NHS and Brent Council a 28 page Critique of the NW London Sustainability and Transformation Plan drat of 30 June 2016. The Plan has been in the public domain since 5 August as explained in earlier posts on this site.
For technical reasons (our lack of skill) we can’t link you to the Critique on this website. If you would like a copy by email please write to email@example.com .
Here is what we are saying about the draft STP in a media release:
“NHS Plan for NW London not fit for purpose”
Brent Patient Voice, a voluntary body that speaks for patients in Brent, is highly critical of the draft NHS North West London Sustainability and Transformation Plan as published on 5 August this year.
According to BPV Chair Robin Sharp “It does not do what it says on the tin. It is not a convincing plan for delivering the health services we all need. To make matters worse, it defies belief by suggesting that cuts of £1.3 billion by 2021 will improve the situation.”
“Perhaps the deepest concern” he continued, “is that without any clear explanation it seeks to usher in a new way of relating us to our GPs. This will be through pushing them all into huge companies in order to join so-called “Accountable Care Partnerships”. The best way to describe these is as local health conglomerates.”
Brent Patient Voice has sifted through the detailed 67-page Plan, and today produced a separate “Critique” document, available on request. These are some of our key conclusions:
“The Plan so far published is not fit for purpose. It does not offer convincing evidence that £1.3billion can be cut from healthcare budgets in the 8 NW London Boroughs by 2021 without significant damage nor is it persuasive in suggesting that it will be wise to “transform” primary care, that is the way we relate to our GPs, at high speed via so-called “Accountable Care Providers”.
Fundamentally the STP is not transparent. It refers to massive savings without any indication as to how they will be achieved.If it was a plan for NW Londoners to “live well and be well”, as it claims, it would present a budget and an across the board description of the services provided.
We do not see the case for trying to overcome the current organisational structure, embodied in law, in favour of the so-called “Footprint” across 8 boroughs, though we welcome all steps towards collaboration between the local NHS and local authorities, especially in public health and social care.
We believe that while all public bodies should act economically and efficiently there are no major efficiency savings available to fill the gap between increasing demand and current budgetary constraints in the healthcare arena. Whether and how the gap is closed is a matter for national political choice. Without more money for social care the hospital system will not work.”