Any near-term reforms of the NHS will most likely be gradual, rather than large-scale, and will need to get to the root of how to improve services, argues a new report.
The new Economist Intelligence Unit report, Doing more with less: Britain’s healthcare funding challenges, which is sponsored by BMI Healthcare, also says that funding choices based on clinical evidence could help to avoid expensive reforms.
Economists and healthcare managers interviewed for the report said that key recommendations of the 2002 review of the NHS by Sir Derek Wanless, which included reforms to improve quality and productivity, had not been fulfilled.
The Economist Intelligence Unit forecasts demand for health services to rise at a faster pace than GDP over the next five years, driven by an expanding, ageing and increasingly well-informed population, advances in medical science and a rise in the incidence of chronic disease, among other factors.
“Several important policy steps are available which could help to relieve some of the cost and demand burdens on British healthcare,” said Iain Scott, Senior Editor, Economist Intelligence Unit. “If they are going to work, any reforms ought to rely less on fiddling with institutions and structures, and more on changing the culture of the health service and getting to the root of how to advance the quality of care.”
Those interviewed for the new report warned that staff and managers have been left weary and demoralised by attempts to reorganise the NHS and the emphasis on performance targets. Respondents also indicated a belief that the public would not tolerate a return to longer waiting times as a result of cuts to frontline services.
Meanwhile, the report argues that evidence-based approaches typified by NICE and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) could relieve pressure on the healthcare system without requiring expensive, top-down reforms.
The report Doing more with less: Britain’s healthcare funding challenges used information from the Wanless report, as well as research by The King’s Fund and the Social Market Foundation. Further material came from NHS institutions, separate Economist Intelligence Unit research and in-depth interviews with leading economists and NHS managers.