Can National Pay Bargaining in the NHS Kill?

Pay for NHS clinical staff (nurses and physicians) is set nationally, with very little variation to take into account local labour market conditions. This is a problem because in the UK regional pay differences are high, even when you control for things like education and skills. As a result, there are large differences in the UK between wages inside and outside sectors where pay is strictly regulated like the NHS. In some regions NHS clinical staff are overpaid relative to local labour market conditions, while in others (London and the South East) clinical staff are underpaid and would get higher pay if they left the NHS for the private sector.

This leads to worse outcomes for patients according to a 2010 paper from Propper and Van Reenen. Looking at the hospital death rate for heart attacks alone, they find that national pay setting for NHS clinical staff (nurses in particular) leads to 366 extra deaths every year.

In effect, national pay setting in the NHS for nurses acts as a price ceiling in high wage regions, which in the absence of other countervailing factors should generally lead to an undersupply.

There are two major predictable effects of this defacto price ceiling.  First, we should expect nurses to move from areas where their wages are relatively low (London and the South-East) to areas where their wages are relatively high (South-West and the North-East). Second, we should expect nurses in London and the South East to leave the regulated sector (NHS) for the unregulated sector (private nursing homes) where they can expect higher pay. Put simply, we should expect the NHS to get better in low wage regions, and get worse in high wage regions. 

Now this alone doesn’t really tell us much about the overall effect of setting pay nationally in the NHS. Perhaps the benefits of better service in the North-East outweigh the harm of worse service in London.

However, the data implies that regulating pay leads to worse outcome across the NHS on balance. Part of the problem is that people have strong area-based preferences: they aren’t willing to just up sticks and move across the country unless they’re getting a serious jump in wages. So instead they’ll be more likely to stay in the high wage region and just leave the NHS altogether to move into the nursing home sector where pay isn’t set nationally. 

On balance, this leads to 366 extra heart attack deaths each year across the NHS. But the authors suggest this figure might, if anything, be understating the harms of national pay setting:

If we were able to calculate the fall in quality across a much wider range of illnesses (deaths and more minor loss of quality of life), we would scale up the social loss by a very large amount.

If we devolved pay negotiation and hiring powers to trusts, we could raise standards across the NHS and most importantly, save lives!

More evidence that the NHS is providing substandard care

Back in April, the Institute of Economic Affairs released a paper that found the UK’s healthcare system to be severely lagging behind neighboring countries. The research, carried out by author Dr Kristian Niemietz, found that social health insurance systems – especially in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Germany – perform better than the NHS across the board, from the quality of healthcare provided to the heath outcomes of patients. Most shockingly, Niemietz found that “9,000 more deaths occur each year in the UK than would have if the performance of the NHS had matched that of the German system, in terms of avoidable mortality.” Just last week, the IEA released another paper from Niemietz, called Diagnosis: Overrated - An analysis of the structural flaws in the NHS, which highlights the structural flaws and political hindrances that keep the NHS from producing better results:

From the press release:

The NHS’s status as a sacrosanct institution promotes ‘groupthink’ and undermines the ability to detect and correct instances of failure, and to adapt to changing circumstances. This was most immediately evident after the Mid-Staffs scandal.

The idea that ‘we’, the public, run the NHS ‘collectively’ is a popular illusion. Democratic accountability in the system is so vague and roundabout that it is almost meaningless in practice. There is almost zero overlap between the health policies proposed in general election campaigns and those enacted afterwards. The insistence that ‘the people’ are really in charge is empty rhetoric. The health service is run by the political class, senior bureaucrats and the medical establishment.

More specifically, from the paper:

Under a system of meaningful exit options, patients would not just have had the option to bypass Mid Staffordshire, but funding organisations (e.g. health insurers) would also have had the right to withhold payments, given that Mid Staffordshire was clearly not fulfilling its side of the bargain. A pincer movement of this sort might well have bankrupted the hospital, eventually making room for a more suitable provider. That threat of revenue loss and bankruptcy, not ‘democratic accountability’, is what brings providers’ self-interest into line with patients’ interests.

Niemietz’s findings from both April and December are valuable additions to the accumulating evidence that the NHS is in dire need of reform. His research backs up the most recent OECD report, that found the UK’s quality of healthcare to be “poor to mediocre” and its preventative care measures to be “outstandingly poor”.

Unfortunately, most UK politicians seem deeply committed to maintaining the status quo and providing Brits with substandard care. But slowly, evidence is finding its way into the heart of the healthcare debate, and the successes of market-based systems in Europe can't be ignored much longer, as the NHS continues on to its breaking point.

Comparing apples to apples: NHS still ranks below average

Most healthcare reporting is deeply biased. From blogs to papers to policy, most people have strong preferences for different kinds of healthcare systems that they believe to be ‘the best’, often based on what they view the role of the state to be. Obviously some beliefs are grounded in more facts and stats than others, but given how complicated healthcare systems are, it’s possible to come up with all different kinds of conclusions that appear, at least on the surface, like they’re grounded in fact. Compare, for example, The Commonwealth Fund 2014 report to the 2014 European Health Consumer Index: two studies that compare international healthcare systems. Both published within one year of each other, The Commonwealth Fund ranked the NHS the best healthcare system out of 11 countries, while the EHCI threw it down the list, ranking it 14th after all your obvious competitors, including The Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, but also after your less obvious contenders, like Portugal.

Both reports appear to be thoroughly researched and have lots of numbers to back them up. So who do you believe? Well, if you favour single-payer health systems, you're probably going favour the Commonwealth Fund's report, which inherently favours centralised systems. (For example: out-of-pocket costs and insurer rejection of full cost reimbursement were considered a black mark against a healthcare system, regardless of access to treatment.) If you rank results higher than the principles around who delivers healthcare or who makes a profit, you're probably going to favour the EHCI's report, that gives more weight to things like waiting lists.

I personally give more credit to the EHCI report because my primary concern when it comes to healthcare systems is patient outcomes. That’s my bias.

Which is why the OECD’s healthcare efficiency reports are so important. The OECD’s stance is that “there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to reforming health care systems. Policymakers should aim for coherence in policy settings by adopting best practices from the many different health care systems that exist in the OECD and tailor them to suit actual circumstances.” So while the OECD does make some comparisons of countries across the board, it also intentionally group countries together based on different kinds of healthcare systems in order to compare like with like.

Specifically, they break countries down into six groups to compare the efficiencies of similar healthcare institutions to each other, in an attempt to identify where the most improvement can be made within specific systems:

The UK falls into Group 6, which is characterised as:

Mostly public insurance. Health care is mainly provided by a heavily regulated public system, with strict gate-keeping, little decentralisation and a tight spending limit imposed via the budget process

Seven countries fall into this category: Hungary, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, and the UK. The OECD uses nifty radar charts (click on links) to illustrate how each country compares to both the OECD average as well as Group 6’s average in different areas including efficiency and quality, amenable mortality, prices, resources, consumption, financing and policy. The final chart ranks each country’s to measure its comparative efficiency. The results:

High DEA Score: Norway, Italy Above Average: Poland Average: New Zealand Below Average: UK Low: Hungary, Ireland

The OECD’s analysis: “The quantity and quality of health care services (in the UK) remain lower than the OECD average while compensation levels are higher. Reinforcing competitive pressures on providers could help mitigate price pressures, e.g. by increasing user choice further and reforming compensation systems.”

On Tuesday I noted that the UK is one of the OECD countries that could do the most to improve its efficiency in public healthcare spending . But breaking that down even further, the UK doesn’t come close to topping the charts in its own group.

Perhaps the UK should be looking to make improvements to resemble Norway, which tops the ranks for public health services. Or maybe it should be looking towards other categories that focus on social insurance systems. Either way, it's time for the UK to start looking beyond the NHS.

Myth busting: NHS not so efficient after all

The NHS has long coasted on the widely held belief that it is one of the best healthcare systems in the world because it is so efficient. While European systems boast better patient outcomes, and the United States points to its excellent pre-emptive care measures, NHS loyalists cast that all aside, because unlike any of those other countries, the UK is able to keep its healthcare spending below 10% of GDP, free at the point of use, with relatively good outcomes. No other country can beat that efficiency. Well, it turns out most of them do.

In 2010, the OECD published multiple papers that specifically looked at the efficiencies of different health care systems. In its report “Health care systems: getting more value for money”, the OECD found that there was “room in all countries surveyed to improve the effectiveness of their health care spending.” Some countries, however, could see significant efficiencies gained. And the top three countries that could benefit the most: Greece, Ireland, and the United Kingdom.

By improving the efficiency of the health system, public spending savings would be large as compared to a no-policy-change scenario, amounting to almost 2% of 2017 GDP on average in the OECD. It would be over 3% for Greece, Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Breaking with myth, the UK is one of the countries that could do the most to improve its efficiency in public healthcare spending. Even more than the United States.

What the loyalists don’t seem to realise is that efficiency can’t simply be determined by how much money a country puts towards healthcare. The real question is how efficiently those monetary resources are being used to obtain better health outcomes.

And according to the OECD, both the UK and the US still have a long way to go:

Australia, Iceland, Japan, Korea and Switzerland perform best in transforming spending into health outcomes

In more than one third of OECD countries, exploiting efficiency gains in the health care sector would allow improving health outcomes as much as over the previous decade while keeping spending constant (Figure 2, Panel B). Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States fall into this group.

I’m not predicting the end of this health care tale. Perhaps, if the right reforms were made to the NHS to drastically improve efficiencies, the UK would have a system that not only demands less public spending, but also creates better health outcomes too. To compare apples with apples, Norwegian healthcare is " is mainly provided by a heavily regulated public system, with strict gate-keeping" and grouped together with the UK in the OECD's categorisations for healthcare systems; yet Norway's system is ranked much better for efficiency (more details to come in next blog...).

I just thought I'd flag up that, as things stand, the NHS under-performs on just about everything that matters.

Lies, damned lies, and electioneering statistics: privatising the NHS

Now the election campaign is in full swing, there has been a sharp rise in questionable statistics used in public discourse. This is distressing, as there is a risk people vote on the basis of misinformation. It seems that by using the same bogus assertions repeatedly, politicians of all stripes are able to eventually change the ‘facts’. The debate around the NHS has been the most dishonest. “Reverse the tide of privatisation in our NHS”

There has NOT been a tide of privatisation in our NHS. Privatisation if the process of transferring ownership of an organisation from government to the private sector. No shares have been issued in the NHS, nor distributed as vouchers to citizens. The NHS remains publically owned and funded, resources have grown in terms of real cash and people, and services are free at the point of the use. They must still provide services to all, whilst a ‘privatised’ company could choose to only serve those who pay.

Outsourcing isn’t privatisation, and is slowing

The government has encouraged competitive tendering of services, and outsourcing has increased, but only from 4.4% under Labour to under 6% with the Coalition. The rate of outsourcing has actually slowed under the Coalition. Regardless, outsourcing isn’t privatisation, maintains free at the point of use access, and can result in better services.

What about Hinchingbrooke Hospital?

Hinchingbrooke Hospital is the closest example to privatisation, as it is now run (though not owned) by a private company. The tender process for the hospital happened in October 2009, under Labour, further exposing their hypocrisy. Regardless, its core assets are publicly owned, and it still delivers NHS services free at the point of use.

An honest debate would consider alternative models that would improve services 

As an aside, it’s worth noting that Hinchingbrooke has gone from one of the worst ranked hospitals, on the verge of shutdown, to one of the best for patient happiness and waiting times.

A proper discourse on health care would focus on ways to improve the quality. We should examine the merits of private (profit and non-profit) providers, rather than being blocked by ideological labelling. We should explore how alternative models that don’t reply on as much government management, like in Germany or Singapore, could deliver better services for all.

Miliband's attack on profit is an attack on patients

Either Ed Miliband is struggling to understand the basics or his ideology is spiralling out of control. The latest Labour pledge:

Labour would cap the amount of profit private firms can make from the NHS, Ed Miliband will say as he launches the party's election campaign.

He will pledge to halt the "drive to privatisation" he claims has taken place in the health service since 2010.

The future of the NHS is "on the ballot paper" and only Labour can guarantee the funding it needs, he will say.

Under his plans, private firms will have to reimburse the NHS if they exceed a 5% profit cap on contracts.

Companies make profit by keeping costs as low as possible while producing a product or service that people want (and ideally choose) to consume. Apologies for the simplicity, but apparently Ed needs it.

Pledging to fix levels of profit that a company can make ruins any motivation for the company to bring costs down. Given the NHS’s current financial situation, Miliband should not be so quick to toss aside the importance of efficiency gains.

Nor should he be ignorant of private firm’s impacts on patient outcomes.

Private firms are hardly private when working for the NHS; they are still under the jurisdiction of NHS bureaucracy and are often dependent on public funds for their operations. But where private firms and independent sector treatment centres do differ from the public sector is in their record on patient outcomes. Research from 2011 showed that ISTC surgery patients are healthier and experience less severe recovery conditions than patients undergoing the same surgeries with NHS providers.

Furthermore, Circle's management of Hitchingbrooke Hospital turned a failing trust into one of the highest ranked hospitals for patient happiness and cut waiting times drastically; their recent failings were not a result of bad healthcare but rather bad business.

One of the reasons Circle reneged on its government contract is because it’s a struggle to make efficiency gains under NHS regulations as they currently exist; if Labour gets its way, this will become nearly impossible.

Miliband's attack on privatization and profit is an ideological attack on buzzwords; unfortunately, his crackdown could have real affects on patient outcomes.

Keep Politicians out of the NHS

In the run-up to the election, politicians are trying to out-bribe us with our own money to pay for escalating NHS expectations. Democracy has a dark side. Doctors are telling politicians to: “stop messing with NHS to win votes.” (The Times, 17th February, p.15). Demand will always outstrip capacity for a free good such as health. The questions are simply two: how much money should be allocated to the NHS and how should those resources be best managed to maximise welfare?  The former question is essentially political but the latter should not be. The budget should be set annually and not agonised over every day.

As every government IT project demonstrates, government does not do management well. One can blame either politicians or civil servants but it is the combination that is fatal. Apparently the present Secretary of State for Health assembles his entire team every Monday morning to micro-manage NHS issues in Darlington, Taunton or wherever. Or rather to attempt to micro-manage. This may improve media coverage but it builds confusion and disheartenment throughout the NHS.

All the best-run large businesses know that those at the top should lead, not manage. The first level of management should be empowered to deal with the micro-stuff and thereafter the next level of management should deal with matters the lower level cannot sensibly address. Because the NHS is so very large, that lesson is the more important.

How can politicians be removed from NHS management? Simple. We have a relatively new, well experienced, NHS England Chief Executive. He seems excellent and a great improvement on his predecessor. NHS England and the other national NHSs should be converted into public corporations, like the BBC, i.e. a stand alone operations funded and responsible to government but managed, day to day, independently. Whether to close, say, a cottage hospital would be a matter for NHS England. Politicians will still, rightly, lobby but they should not be making the decision.

Our political leaders should lead, not second guess local NHS doctors and managers. In addition to setting the budget, politicians should agree the budget and the strategy, i.e. what, overall, we should expect for our money. Then they should get out of the operating theatre.

Rules and recipes are different things Mr. Burnham

We tend to think that there must be some special dictionary out there, one hidden from us mere mortals, that allows politicians to say whatever they damn well please and yet not use the words that we all do. Almost as if there's some other foreign language they use to speak to us mere voters. Take this from Andy Burnham for example:

As Burnham correctly said last week: “For change to work in a market context, all players need to be following the same rules.”

This is in the course of The Observer managing to get absolutely everything about obesity, sugar and fatty lardbuckets entirely wrong. We all consume fewer calories than our grandparents did, sugar is not addictive (we consume less of it than in the past) said fatty lardbuckets do not cost the NHS money (dying young saves the NHS money) and so on and so on throughout the entire litany. And, of course, they're entirely wrong in the basic theory of what they are talking about for the role of government is not to tell us how to live our lives but to enable us to live our lives as we would wish.

But specifically what Burnham is talking about there is that manufacturers should be forced, whether by taxation or by regulation, to put less sugar, less salt, in our food. And no doubt to throw some organic lentils in there at some point as well.

Which is where that special dictionary comes in of course. Because that's not "rules" that's "recipes".

Is it too much to hope that one who would rule the country actually speaks the language of it? Sure, Willie the Conq and George I didn't do so well on this basis but aren't we supposed to have moved on?

Hinchingbrooke Hospital isn't an example of bad privatisation; just an example of bad business

The first private healthcare provider to take over an NHS hospital just over three years ago is pulling out of its contract today, claiming it is “‘no longer sustainable under current terms’ because of rising demand and falling funding.” You can picture the foam forming around the mouths of hungry public-sector supporters and Burnhamites; in this ultimate battle to keep UK healthcare not only free at the point of use, but in public sector control, they’ve been craving a golden piece of evidence against the private-sector.

But Circle's contract termination isn't quite that.

Circle’s involvement with Hinchingbrooke Hospital is far from a traditional private sector model. Hinchingbrooke did not become a private hospital, but rather a privately managed hospital, that was still under the jurisdiction of NHS bureaucracy and, more importantly, dependent on public funds for its operations. Furthermore, there was nothing particularly competitive about the market, and while Circle did have an incentive to make some profit if it made a surplus, not much of its own money was at risk.

Circle’s contract with the government dictated that the hospital would be supported with public funds, give or take up to £5m worth of payments from Circle if public funds weren’t sufficient to provide necessary support for Hinchingbrooke.

Within a few years of taking over Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Circle Holdings took a failing hospital that “consistently ranked near the bottom of the 46 trusts for waiting times” – and that would have been shut down if it hadn’t been sold – and turned it into “one of the highest (ranked hospitals) for patient happiness”. Circle also corrected waiting time failures, leading the hospital to “(top) the list for short waiting times, seeing 98.2 per cent of patients within the required window”.

From ASI Fellow, Tim Evans:

Circle massively improved this hospital and the government should now do two things – 1. Recognise what a good job they have done and re-negotiate the contract to keep them on board - barring another company taking it over. 2. The government should announce that is wants more - not less - private and employee ownership of hospitals, clinics and other care facilities.

It is definitely the case that Circle brought to the table a much better management system and improved healthcare significantly for the hospital's patients. But these triumphs for both the hospital and its patients didn’t necessarily reflect a sensible business strategy. In fact, choosing to muddy the waters between public and private care under NHS supervision was a risky decision indeed.

From the ASI’s Dr Eamonn Butler:

I was very surprised that any private firm took on an NHS hospital. I spoke to private providers throughout the 90s and they all rejected the idea. An existing hospital comes with current buildings, equipment, procedures, personnel and above all culture. In schools a new head teacher can turn around a school, though there will be a lot of redundancies and redeployments along the way. In the NHS that is even more unthinkable, given the strength of the employee unions, including the doctors' trade unions, and the ease with which any changes can be dramatised as 'cuts'.

“Hinchingbrooke’s funding has been cut 10.1pc this financial year”, and having already spent £4.84m of the required £5m of its own funds, Circle claims it can no longer run the hospital in a successful, effective way.

More from Eamonn:

What we need is more private, voluntary or charitable groups providing healthcare services on their own terms, in facilities that they themselves create and with staff that they pick by hand because of their skill, dedication and commitment to the enterprise.

Circle’s improvements to Hinchingbrooke Hospital should not go overlooked, and the Circle experiment should not be dubbed an example of private healthcare gone awry. Real privatisation puts the risk and responsibility on healthcare providers and those who hold equity - ideally including doctors, nurses, and hospital staff members - and then allows for public choice to dictate the winners and losers in the field. It's not backed up or heavily regulated by public funds.

If Circle's experiment has shown us anything, it's that private healthcare providers need more stake and control in their endeavours to produce good results.

More from Tim:

We have to move to 100% independent provision of hospitals through genuine ownership and property - not time bound and counterproductive government contracts.

In reality, Circle’s flirtation with public healthcare was not an experiment in the privatisation of the NHS, but rather an experiment to determine if public funds and oversight were compatible with private sector management. And in the case of healthcare, it looks to be a bust.

The latest argument for paid kidney donation

Apparently people receiving kidney transplants sometimes have to put up with pretty much any old dog end:

Almost 300 patients have been given kidneys previously turned down by other hospitals, with the majority not having been informed.

One in 11 kidneys transplanted from dead donors recently were used after at least three other units rejected them, official figures showed.

Doctors said a shortage of donors meant there was a need to use lower-quality “second-hand organs”. Critically ill patients are being forced to choose whether to hold out for a better organ that might never come.

Recipients were, however, not told that the organs had been turned down elsewhere. Patient leaders are calling for improvements to be made to enable patients to make informed choices. Patients are told what is wrong with the organs, but surgeons said it was irrelevant how many others had rejected them.

Kidneys have been offered on a “fast track” scheme after they had been rejected by five hospitals if the donor was brain dead, or three if the donor died after cardiac arrest since 2012.

This is not, to put it mildly, optimal. However, it is a useful illustration of the basic point about kidney transplantation. Which is that, very simply, not enough people die healthy enough to provide the kidneys needed for those who will die without a transplant. This is true whether we use an opt in system, an opt out one, even if we nationalised the cadavers of everyone in the country. We have to supplement that cadaveric supply with live donations.

At which point we'll make our now ritual point. There's only one country in the world with no shortage of kidneys for transplant. There's also only one country that allows direct compensation of live donors (under quite strict government and ethical control, of course). Iran is the only place that manages both. given that this does in fact work, does save lives, it's really something we ought to be doing ourselves. And, given that a transplant is vastly cheaper over time than continued dialysis it would save the NHS substantial sums if we did just bung a live donor £25k or so.

There really are some things that are just too important not to have markets in them.