International Association of Health Policy

UK: criticism of the coalition government’s controversial White Paper “Liberating the NHS”

PRESS RELEASE: Friday October 1, Immediate

BMA right to slam Lansley’s “deeply flawed” White Paper

Pro-NHS pressure group Heath Emergency today welcomed the shift of position by the BMA to open criticism of the coalition government’s controversial White Paper “Liberating the NHS”.

Health Emergency Director Dr John Lister published a widely publicised open letter to BMA Chair Hamish Meldrum early in August, warning that the doctors’ union could be making a “historic mistake” if it lent any support to Andrew Lansley’s proposals. He now says doctors are now right to have recognised some of the real dangers at the heart of the White Paper.

Among Mr Lansley’s proposals:

· GPs would take over the commissioning of £80 billion or more of services in England: the existing structure of local Primary Care Trusts and regional Strategic Health Authorities would be scrapped. And while some GPs have welcomed the potential influence they might gain from this, a growing number have recognised that they would first and foremost become responsible for carrying through £20 billion of “efficiency savings” which will require many unpopular cutbacks and closures by 2014.

· In addition GPs would either have to spend more time in bureaucratic meetings and administration – leaving less time to care for patients – or employ teams of managers or management consultants to take on this role, effectively creating a new NHS bureaucracy.

· The plan to replace 150 PCTs with 500-600 “consortiums” of GPs opens up the danger of a new “postcode lottery” in which patients in one area get less or greater access to services than their neighbours in another. And GPs in deprived areas are likely to find their concerns and their patients’ needs brushed aside as larger, better-resourced GP practices from more prosperous areas take control of consortia.

· To make matters worse, the drive towards privatisation would be accelerated, with plans to offer NHS contracts for patient care to bids from “any willing provider” – whether for-profit or a non-profit “social enterprise”.

· And in another twist of privatisation, all existing NHS Trusts also obliged to become Foundation Trusts, while the law would be changed, lifting the present restrictions to allow Foundation Trusts to raise as much income as they wish from private patients: with their NHS funding frozen or falling, this means many top Foundation Trusts would focus their energies on attracting wealthy paying patients from home and abroad, rather than on NHS patients. NHS patients would become second class citizens.

Commenting on the BMA’s official response, which argues that the White Paper could undermine the “stability and future” of the NHS, Health Emergency’s John Lister said:

“The shift of stance by the BMA makes it clear that more and more GPs as well as hospital doctors are waking up to the many fundamental flaws at the very heart of this White Paper.

“Many are realising that with £20 billion of cuts to carry through they would not be “liberated” to commission better for their patients, but would instead be trapped in the role of rationing boards, deciding which patients to exclude from care, and which services to axe.

“The BMA’s critical stance now lines them up more closely with the TUC health unions, which have unanimously rejected the White Paper.

“But it’s not enough just to criticise Lansley’s proposals, which are driven by ideology rather than any evidence. It’s clear that this government takes no notice of criticism, and the so-called “consultation” is a sham. If the plans are as bad as the BMA now argues, there must be an active campaign to ensure they are dropped.

“There is no sign anywhere of significant public support for these proposals, which were revealed in July and have been largely ignored by the media over the summer. Wherever people hear of the full content of the proposals they are angry and opposed to them.

“The government has no mandate for these proposals. Both the Tories and LibDems deliberately opted NOT to put these ideas to the electorate in June – because they know full well that if they had, they would have been rejected.

“A combined campaign by all those who reject this commercialisation and privatisation of health care could now push the issue into the front line of political debate, and force the ConDem coalition to back off.”

FURTHER INFORMATION and analysis of Lansley’s White Paper, including a tabloid newspaper, is available at www.healthemergency.org.uk <http://www.healthemergency.org.uk/> .

· Dr John Lister can be contacted on 07774 264112, or john.lister@virgin.net

The right to health for citizens of the European Union, Brussels 20 October 2010

Edificio Van Maerlant:

Van Maerlant Building (VMA1)

2, Rue Van Maerlant

1000 Bruxelles

The objective of the conference is to analyze the currentsituation of the right to health in EU regulations, the situation in thecountries of the European Unionand to propose a letter from the right to health of EUcitizens.

9 A.m.: Roundtable .- The right to health in EUregulations

11 A.m.: Roundtable .- .- The right to health in EUcountries

13 P.m.: Lunchbreak

14.30 P.m.: Roundtable: Proposed letter of right tohealth care for the

Europeans as / eas.

16.30 P.m.: Conclusions and closing

Organizers:

Federation of Associations for Defence of Public Health

Foundation for Health Research in Castilla La Mancha

International Association of Health Policy

Pre-registration is required.

Send the enclosed form to:

fadspu@gmail.com

REGISTRATION FORM:

BRUSSELS

October 20, 2010

CONFERENCE: THE RIGHT TO HEALTH OF THE CITIZENSOF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Name:

Address:

Country:

Institution / Workplace:

e-mail:

Programa Master en Políticas Públicas y Sociales

Programa en Políticas Públicas y Sociales

UNIVERSIDAD POMPEU FABRA- THE JOHNS HOPKINS

Desde hace ya seis años la Universidad Pompeu Fabra conjuntamente con uno de los programas de formación en Políticas Públicas más importantes en el mundo anglosajón, el Public Policy Program de la Johns Hopkins University de Estados Unidos, establecieron en Barcelona el Programa en Políticas Públicas y Sociales.

El Programa tiene una orientación interdisciplinaria y multidisciplinaria y cuenta con un área de formación y un área de investigación, especializando ambas actividades en áreas como seguridad social, ocupación y trabajo, salud y sanidad, educación, servicios de ayuda a las familias, promoción de los derechos civilies y sociales, y otras áreas relacionadas con la calidad de vida y bienestar de la población.

The procedings of the XV IAHPE Conference at Coventry 2009 in DVDs

Conference Videos

Condition Critical: Health Care, Marketising Reforms and the Media

Held at Coventry University between June 17-20 2009

The international conference, organised by the International Associationof Health Policy in Europe and hosted by Coventry University, focused on “Health care, marketisation and the media”. It was attended by delegations from 15 countries and heard 38 papers.

find more and make yopur order for the Conference DVDs at

www.healthemergency.org.uk/publications.php#videos

Novartis threatens Indian generic drug industry

Date: 30 Dec 2009

For decades, India has been known as the “pharmacy of the developing world” for its ability to supply lifesaving generic drugs at a fraction of the cost of those with brand names. People living in India and throughout the Global South rely heavily on these affordable medicines, and without them antiretrovirals, cancer drugs, and hundreds of other basic medications would be out of reach for millions.

However, this fall Novartis appealed a case to the Indian Supreme Court pushing for a more aggressive patent law that would jeopardize the country’s generic drug industry. Currently, India’s law requires real innovation to obtain a new patent. Section 3(d) of the Indian patent law prohibits ‘evergreening,’ a strategy where pharmaceutical companies make small, trivial changes to existing medicines in order to extend the period of patent control on a drug, and thereby extend their profits as well. Removing Section 3 (d) would enable multinational corporations to gain monopolies over already existing drugs and prohibit cheaper generics.

Novartis is challenging Section 3 (d) in order to obtain renewed patent protection of a leukemia drug imatinib mesylate, which it markets as Glivec. Glivec is a drug that has been available for 16 years, but Novartis is seeking a new patent for a recently developed crystalline form. This change is simply a different form of the original compound and does not increase the drug’s efficacy. Gaining patent control would force generic versions out of the market, and put this drug (priced at $2,500 per month by Novartis compared to $175 per month for an Indian generic version) out of reach for 99% of patients who need it.

Novartis argues that “intellectual property rights are an essential safety net to protect the substantial investment of time and money required to bring a drug to market.” However, granting patents for drugs that are neither new nor more effective is not a rational use of intellectual property rights. Further, as Dr. Dabade pointed out in his presentation, it has been shown that more than 40% of the industry‘s research and development (R&D) is aimed at producing minor variations of existing drugs, not at turning out new ones, and that marketing costs are double what is spent on R&D.

This case could endanger the availability of affordable drugs around the world, as the fate of thousands of similar ‘evergreened’ patent requests pending in India rest on this decision. If Novartis wins, accessibility of essential medicines for millions will be eliminated, and pharmaceutical companies will rake in billions more, adding to their already bloated profits at the expense of the world’s poor.

Take a stand against corporate greed and placing profits before people’s lives. Please join us in the fight for health for all by signing the petition against Novartis.

Find more at PHM www.phmovement.org

Tobacco workers are resisting against neoliberal policies in Ankara

The reflections of the General Agreement on Trade of Services or GATS augmented in our daily lives. Contract based work, performance based payment and temporary working schedules, insecurity and unemployment are some of the results of GATS.

Since more than two months tobacco workers of recently privatized Factory of Turkish Monopoly of Tobacco and Alcohol Products (TEKEL) are resisting against neoliberal policies and insecure working which were forced by the government. After the privatization of TEKEL Factories the government made a legal arrangement. This arrangement is made in order to employ the unemployed workers of privatized factories as temporary staff. The workers are no more called as workers they called as temporary staff. They can work only 4-10 months a year, they loose their social rights. They can not become a member of any union because they are neither public servants nor workers. The government forces a contemporary slavery to the TEKEL workers.

by Feride Aksu

find more & photos

El Derecho a la Salud para todos en la Unión Europea

El Derecho a la Salud para todos en la Unión Europea

Declaración de Toledo

Los ciudadanos y ciudadanas de los países miembros de la Unión Europea disfrutan de unos niveles de salud y de bienestar social entre los más altos del mundo desarrollado, resultado de la acción política de los gobiernos, de la intervención del conjunto de los agentes sociales y del desarrollo de los sistemas sanitarios públicos. La salud es un logro social, es un logro de todos/as.

Los ciudadanos y ciudadanas otorgan una gran importancia a la salud individual y colectiva, y demandan mayoritariamente que las políticas públicas continúen el esfuerzo por mantener y mejorar los niveles de salud y bienestar actuales, afrontando los retos de futuro.

Los sistemas sanitarios de los países miembros de la Unión Europea han introducido, progresivamente, reformas en la organización, funcionamiento y mejora de la calidad de sus servicios de atención a la salud. No obstante, existen diferencias y desajustes internos que exigen adoptar medidas para mejorar sus niveles de ineficiencia y reducir los desequilibrios.

Las diferentes situaciones de partida de los sistemas sanitarios de cada país miembro exigen contextualizar estas medidas para lograr a medio largo plazo la convergencia en materia de salud y bienestar.

Las autoridades públicas de los estados miembros tienen la responsabilidad de garantizar el derecho a la salud y responder a las preocupaciones expresadas por los ciudadanos y los agentes sociales.

Sería necesario definir los contenidos del Art. II – 35 del proyecto de Constitución Europea, sobre el derecho a la protección de la salud, ampliando y concretando este derecho.

La Unión Europea se fundamenta sobre los valores indivisibles y universales de la dignidad humana, la libertad, la igualdad y la solidaridad; a dichos valores deber incorporarse también el derecho a la salud como un derecho básico.

Ante esta situación consideramos que existen algunos obstáculos a tener en cuenta:
Los criterios de convergencia económica están determinando el desarrollo y sostenimiento de los actuales niveles del Estado de Bienestar. Las medidas de contención del gasto público tienen un impacto negativo sobre el gasto social. No sólo importa el nivel global del gasto público sino también su distribución

El envejecimiento de la población, las nuevas estructuras familiares, la incorporación de la mujer al trabajo, la llegada de inmigrantes, sobre todo en los países del sur de Europa exige para responder a nuevas demandas y necesidades, un incremento del gasto social incompatible con la política de contención del gasto público.

La OMC (Organización Mundial del Comercio) declaró que los servicios públicos están excluidos del AGCS (Acuerdo General sobre el Comercio de Servicios). Sin embargo la Conferencia Intergubernamental de la Unión Europea celebrada en Niza concedió a la Comisión Europea mayor autonomía en las negociaciones del comercio de servicios. Se establecieron como excepciones los sectores de salud, educación y servicios sociales, sectores que todavía requieren del acuerdo por unanimidad de los países de la Unión Europea.

Ante esta situación proponemos:

Que se escuchen las demandas de los ciudadanos y agentes sociales, para lo que consideramos necesario la creación de un grupo de presión en el que estos estén representados.
Dicho grupo debería elaborar propuestas para corregir los desequilibrios en los niveles de salud y de desarrollo de los servicios sanitarios de los diferentes países miembros. Consideramos posible y necesario mantener el estado del bienestar dentro de una economía de mercado.
En base a estas propuestas debería definir y exigir que se establezcan criterios e instrumentos de cooperación para garantizar el derecho a la salud, fortalecer la cohesión y lograr la convergencia europea en materia de políticas públicas de bienestar social y sanitaria.

Disintegrated and integrated care, by Jean-Pierre Unger et al

The authors are arguing that the negative impact of neoliberal health policy on disease control and health care in low and middleincome countries justifies an alternative aid policy to improve both disease control and health care.

The authors propose social-and-democrat health policy calls for networking, lobbying and training as a joint effort in which committed health professionals can lead the way.

unger-disintegratedhealth

unger-integratedhealth

World Health Organization and Radiations: Denounce the Cover Up

As the international health authority, the World Health Organization (WHO) is responsible for providing scientific and medical guidance to states in the interests of their population’s health. In line with its Constitution, that guidance must be free of all commercial interest. However, on 28 May 1959, the WHO signed an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which prevents either organization from taking a public position on an issue which might harm the interests of the other party (WHA 12-40). The IAEA was established in 1957 to promote civil nuclear energy and in practice, in matters of radiation and health, the WHO is subordinate to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“Independent WHO”
for the independence of the World Health Organization

www.independentwho.info

Chile’s Neoliberal Health Reform: An Assessment and a Critique

Jean-Pierre Unger, Pierre De Paepe, Giorgio Solimano Cantuarias, Oscar Arteaga Herrera

The Chilean health system underwent drastic neoliberal reform in the 980s, with the creation of a dual system: public and private health insurance and public and private provision of health services.

• This reform served as a model for later World Bank–inspired reforms in countries like Colombia.

• The private part of the Chilean health system, including private insurers and private providers, is highly inefficient and has decreased solidarity between rich and poor, sick and healthy, and young and old.

• In spite of serious underfinancing during the Pinochet years, the public health component remains the backbone of the system and is responsible for the good health status of the Chilean population.

• The Chilean health reform has lessons for other countries in Latin America and elsewhere: privatisation of health insurance services may not have the expected results according to neoliberal doctrine. On the contrary, it may increase unfairness in financing and inequitable access to quality care.

Μore