Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
The Back Pages

The white paper: contest for contracts

Julian Tudor Hart
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (525): 303.
Julian Tudor Hart
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

As David Jewell says, the White Paper assures us that tendering processes for provision of primary care in underdoctored and oversick areas will be fair.1 What evidence is there to support this assurance?

The first serious contest for such contracts took place in December 2005 at Langwith and Creswell in North East Derbyshire, communities socially devastated by the destruction of the British coal industry since 1985. Dr Bess Barrett, with 20 years' experience of providing care in the area, a good clinical team with university connections, unanimous support from local councillors and development land offered free for a new building, submitted her imaginative plans for provision of care after wide consultation with local people and their elected representatives. I know what it's like trying to find staff willing to accept the huge workloads and small material rewards of good practice in mining areas. A primary care trust genuinely representing the interests of the people it is supposed to serve would have needed to look no further, and been grateful to know that miracles may still occur.

In the event, Dr Barrett's bid was not even short-listed. The preferred bidder was UnitedHealth Europe (UHE), UK division of the biggest commercial provider of primary care in US. Its director is Dr Richard Smith, former BMJ editor and one-time opponent of a commercialised NHS. Its president is Professor Simon Stevens, former chief adviser on NHS policy to the prime minister. They had no staff yet recruited, no plans for their own premises, and no visible support from the communities they proposed to serve. Through the Freedom of Information Act, Dr Barrett learned of the main criteria on which this selection was based: past experience of providing primary care; past experience of interaction with consumers; back-up resources, especially expertise in information systems; and ‘strategic vision’. As this was UHE's first venture into the NHS primary care market and it had done nothing to ascertain local opinion, it should have scored zero on the first two of these criteria, but in fact it scored highest of all bidders. This can be explained only if the trust accepted experience in the US market as equivalent or superior to experience in the NHS. As for resources, if bids are to be judged simply by the size of their managerial staffs, bank balances and shareholders, we have evidently seen the last of any GP providers of care in post-industrial areas. And ‘strategic vision’? This was presumably matched against visions revealed to Prime Minister Blair in his personal discussions with God.

Fortunately, the Trust's decision is still subject to judicial review, initiated by local Labour councillor Pam Smith. A judge ruled recently that selection of UHE must go on hold until a decision has been reached on its legality. As we await this verdict, we need to understand that so far as government is concerned, the era of civilised discourse and restrained civil conduct is long past. Lying to the public for its own good is permissible to people with power now, as once it was for our formerly autocratic profession. In the UK as much as the US, we are now ruled by fundamentalists, whose faith in market competition and the profit motive as the sole path to effective public service is unshakeable by evidence.

David fought Goliath on a level playing field, knowing that he must fight to win, which means having some idea what to do next. We also can quote scripture, and hopefully think beyond it.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2006.

REFERENCE

  1. ↵
    1. Jewell D
    (2006) The fairy godmother has spoken. Br J Gen Pract 56:163–164.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 56 (525)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 56, Issue 525
April 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The white paper: contest for contracts
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The white paper: contest for contracts
Julian Tudor Hart
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (525): 303.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The white paper: contest for contracts
Julian Tudor Hart
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (525): 303.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCE
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

The Back Pages

  • The ethics of listening and responding to patients' narratives: implications for practice
  • How big is your society?
  • Evidence-based medicine and Web 2.0: friend or foe?
Show more The Back Pages

Viewpoint

  • The NHS: have the rivets popped?
  • Bring Hippocrates to the people and save the NHS
  • Getting the swagger back into general practice
Show more Viewpoint

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242