Unhealthy influence: The rise of the NHS Partners Network

The transformation of a small private healthcare trade association into a powerful and influential lobby group provides a clear indication of the direction the NHS has taken.  Today the NHS Partners Network has some of the most powerful private healthcare companies as members and is a trustee on the NHS Confederation board. Social Investigations journalist Andrew Robertson examines the development of one of the best-connected and most persuasive privatisation cheerleaders.

The early days

The NHS Partners Network (NHSPN) came into existence in 2005 to provide a voice for private health companies involved in Labour’s Independent Sector Treatment programme (ISTC) which opened up non-emergency treatments to the private sector.

This programme provided a foothold for private companies in the NHS and the NHSPN quickly started playing a protective role for its membership. Its 2007 annual report boasted of using its influence to downplay the significance of a leaked document from the Health Care Commission that raised questions over quality standards within the ISTCs.

’Blending’ with the NHS

In the same year it was voted on to the NHS Confederation, the main representative for organisations offering NHS services, a move that gave it increased legitimacy. Now, as part of the agreement for all networks in the confederation, the NHSPN is represented at trustee level, currently through the Chief Executive of Care UK, Mike Parish.  In addition to this, David Worskett the director of the NHSPN, is also a director within the Confederation. 
The influence of the network has now increased well beyond its original remit.. As part of its membership package, the NHSPN promises ”regular dialogue with ministers and senior level decision makers within the main political parties”, and ”good contacts with the media to promote the role of the independent sector within the NHS”.

You can judge a club by its members…
In 2008, the network’s membership stood at just ten companies, which included Care UK, Circle and Ramsay Healthcare UK. Yet, it now held considerable influence. The 2007/8 annual report informed members how in October 2007, the network had held a meeting with Andrew Lansley “on the Conservative Party’s draft bill”.  This ”bill” went on to become the infamous ‘Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS’ white paper and in turn the even more infamous Health and Social Care Act of 2012. The report also described “briefings aimed at furthering the interests of members with shadow health secretary Andy Burnham, Conservative MP and advisor to Circle Health Mark Simmonds, and multiple other key personnel and advisors at the Department of Health.

To become a member of the NHSPN, an annual payment of £35,000 is required, which includes a membership fee to the NHS Confederation, which is a registered charity. The sum of money is clearly seen as money well spent and by 2009 the network’s membership had grown substantially to 17 companies, which led to a total income of £347,500 from subscriptions for the year. Two new entrants to the NHSPN stable for this period were UnitedHealth UK and the new GP out of hour’s services provider Harmoni, since bought by Care UK.

The latest annual report lists 26 members, with additions including Bupa and General Healthcare Group. Membership income now stands at £434,000. 

Oliver Letwin led negotiations

Dates for the diary

By 2009, NHSPN staff were moving among the highest political circles.  In the 2009 annual report shows how they had held a NHS board meeting with Andrew Lansley, hosted breakfast meetings at all the party conferences, had a meeting with new industry regulator, Monitor and met with the free market think tank Reform. In control of the network’s marketing and promotional activities at this time was David Worskett, who would soon go on to take over the reigns as director.

The NHS Partners Network was indeed going places, made possible by the Labour party and encouraged still further by a Conservative party intent on shaking the very foundations of the NHS. In May 2010, it was back in power, albeit in coalition with Liberal Democrats. Less than two months after the coalition had formed, Andrew Lansley, now new health secretary, introduced the ‘Liberating the NHS’ white paper.

The remarkable speed with which this hitherto unknown policy appeared was of course no coincidence. The plan had been hatched many years before. However, having failed to win by a clear majority, the Conservatives had to negotiate more than they would have liked. ‘Never Again?’, a book  by Nicholas Timmins from the Institute for Government, describes the deal made behind closed doors by Oliver Letwin and Danny Alexander, who had agreed to support the government’s changes to NHS in exchange for Lords reform. This reckless and deeply undemocratic move allowed the wheels of Conservative policy to begin rolling.

Behind closed doors
Three months after the white paper had come out - and before parliament had even seen the bill - David Worskett, now director of NHSPN, met with the then minister for health, Simon Burns and Earl Howe, who was responsible for commissioning and primary care. A document written by Mr Worskett following the meeting, explained how they would make it clear to (the new) healthcare commissioners what the Any Willing Provider (AWP) policy meant for them, and reassured Mr Worskett that opposition to the GP commissioning plans was likely to be “short-term” and “dissipate” in the future.

The remarkable courtesy shown to Mr Worksett confirmed the Network’s rising status  and this was the time to truly make its presence felt.  Its 2010 annual report described discussions with David Bennett, chairman of the new industry regulator Monitor, and Steven Dorrell, the chair of the health select committee. The self-titled ‘partners’ of the NHS now had the law on their side and were acting less in partnership and more in direct confrontation. Under the title of ‘Main activities’, the Network stated how it had  “defended members threatened by anti-competitive behaviour” and, more intriguingly, influenced “the development of the NHS reforms”.

The Future Forum
This latter statement was not a boast from a lobbying group trying to impress its members but a true reflection on the way the Network was able to maintain competition in the bill despite a near total rejection from both the medical profession and the public. The rising resistance forced the government to set up the NHS Future Forum in order to ”pause, listen and reflect”.

Much to its dismay, the NHSPN found itself locked out of the forum. To allow a private healthcare representative in would have been too politically sensitive at the time. This didn’t mean the network wasn’t involved. The person that would open the door for them turned out to be Sir Stephen Bubb, the Chief Executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, who Cameron had accepted as head of the ”Choice and Competition” part of the Forum.

A memorandum written by David Worskett to his Network members, unearthed by Social Investigations in July last year, revealed how Mr Worskett had held one lengthy, very early discussion with Sir Stephen Bubb at which “we agreed on the approach he would take, what the key issues are, and how to handle the politics. He has not deviated from this for a moment throughout the period.” The memorandum also revealed how “several members have used their own ’routes’ to gain access to key players within No.10 and have been able to report back that the stance there is supportive.

The competition part of the Forum turned out to be such a sham that Bubb announced on his website: "Just as I was signing off our panel's report on 'Delivering real choice' I get sent a copy of the PM's speech announcing he was accepting many of our key recommendations (although we haven't actually given him the report yet!)”.

Financial links to MPs and Lords
The ability of NHSPN members to access the highest levels of government was surely not hindered by the fact that many of the Network’s members employ MPs and Lords. Baroness Bottomley is a director of Bupa for example, while John Nash, now a Lord, was the Chairman of Care UK when Lansley received a donation to run his office when he was shadow health minister. Circle, the first company to win a contract to run a NHS hospital, have Conservative MP Mark Simmonds as an advisor and Baroness Ford is the Chairman of Grove Ltd, a holding company for care home company Barchester Health.

Still so much to do…
The Health and Social Care Act is now passed but the NHSPN’s efforts on behalf of its members is far from finished. Monitor recently opened up a consultation on creating what they call a ‘Fair Playing Field review’, to make sure that when service providers fight it out against each other for contracts the ‘field’ is as even as possible. The NHSPN made a submission highlighting tax, pensions and the NHS Brand as a barrier to equal competition. The irony that the Network itself is allowed to use the NHS as a prefix to its name is apparently lost on its members.

A recent report by healthcare market analysts Laing & Buisson, revealed how services obtained from private providers has increased by 10% in the last year. In less than two weeks the NHS budget will be placed into the hands of the Clinical Commissioning Groups, which will accelerate the outsourcing of services still further. The private healthcare industry is on the rise and so too the NHS Partners Network. 

This article appeared in Corporate Watch

Revealed: Head of Monitor Has Ties with Private Healthcare Lobby Group Who See Tax, Pensions and NHS Brand as Barrier in 'Fair Playing Field' Review.

The latest unholy mess taking place due to the undemocratic, unnecessary and complicated Health and Social Care Act, is the ‘Fair Playing Field’, review being undertaken by the new NHS regulator, Monitor.

A nine-month process has now seen all the submissions handed in and each organisation is wondering what is going to be the result of the review, come the end of March, this year.

April the 1^st is the time when the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are due to takeover, from the Primary Care Trusts, abolished thanks to the new legislation. The ‘Fair Playing Field’ findings, which will conclude in time for this date, will mark the end of the NHS as we know it and increase the fragmentation of services across the country.

Social Investigations can now reveal a private healthcare group’s submission, which brings to the attention of Monitor the barriers the private sector perceive to achieve a Fair Playing Field, which include corporation tax, VAT, pensions and the NHS brand. The only problem is, this same lobby group were heavily influential in maintaining competition in the Health bill during the sham of a 'so-called 'listening exercise'. Furthermore, this same lobby group had previously met with the head of Monitor in a 'like-minded' meeting, bringing the impartiality of the review into question.

The NHS Partner's Network (NHSPN) is made up of private providers who provide NHS services and whose membership includes companies that include Care UK and Virgin Care. The submissionmade by the NHSPN was handed to Monitor in the early stages of the Fair Playing Field review last year, titled: 'NHS Partners Network response to Monitor's Call for initial submissions.'

On the subject of 'economic components', it states: '...to achieve any given post-tax rate of return, on an investment a corporation tax paying entity would have to charge higher prices than an NHS body or charity...the estimated average magnitude of this is that it now adds between 2% and 3% to independent providers.'

Monitor list 'tax asymmetries' as number four under 'Key Issues' to be looked at during the 'Fair Playing Field' review.  As well as corporate tax breaks, the NHSPN have also suggested the review look at the impact of VAT, stating, 'while NHS providers can claim back VAT on certain contracted-out services, independent providers cannot do so.' In addition, public sector providers are at an advantage because of the 'attractiveness' of the pension scheme ', which according to the submission, creates a barrier to workforce flexibility.'

Part 'C' of the submission, asks 'What do we already know about the elements of a fair playing field?' The response from the NHSPN points toward an 'illuminating piece of independent work' done in 2009 by the Office of Health Economics, partly paid for by the NHSPN.' The study builds on a previous work conducted by the University of York, but as the NHSPN funded study 'summarises the York study', they chose only to attach the study they helped fund. The NHSPN is however adamant that the study remains unbiased, stating: 'The report was co-funded by the NHS Confederation and the report itself makes completely clear that it was wholly independent. It went through OHE's normal peer review processes.’

In addition to providing this study, the NHSPN submission tries to weaken the element of public sector training and medical education, which is provided by the NHS. 'Most NHS education and training is 'funded centrally and separately from the main provision of care budgets and this does not therefore directly impact on the fairness of the playing field in the market'. However, as Mr Worskett admitted in a reponse to Social Investigations, when asked why this should be left out he said, 

'We do in fact recognise there is a legitimate discussion about medical education and training but there is a need for a much fuller and longer analysis of the issues before any conclusions can be reached.'

This is followed by a bullet point that states: 'A significant (but not yet quantified) proportion of independent providers do now participate in NHS education and training, in some cases at no cost to the NHS, and while this is doubtless only a small proportion of the whole, it must not be overlooked.'

A further disadvantage the lobby group highlights, is in the 'NHS' itself. Under a heading 'The impact of the NHS "brand"', they state, 'studies of the deregulated utilities markets have suggested that one problem, in developing a fairer playing field, was customer familiarity with and loyalty to the ex-public sector incumbent brands. There is a possibility that similar responses might work unfairly to the disadvantage of independent providers in the NHS market...'

Monitor are meant to be impartial, but the discovery of an internal memo written by NHSPN director, David Worskett reveals both he and Monitor chief, David Bennett met during the Health bill 'pause' under the auspices of free market think tank, Reform.

The document, which was discovered by research blog, Social investigations, was an update informing the groups members on the lobbying that had taken place during the so-called 'listening exercise'. Mr Worksett informs his members how: 'I had a second lengthy meeting...under the auspices of "Reform", with only a handful of other (all like-minded) people present, including David Bennett, the chair of Monitor. He has also consistently taken the same line as us throughout.'

Furthermore, the same memo informs us how David Worksett 'coordinated' the position of the NHSPN during the pause, 'carefully with Monitor...' When asked what this position was, the NHSPN claimed it was 'to establish that Monitor, like us, had not seen the introduction of competition as an objective in its own right but, instead, as a means of improving quality of care for patients.'

David Bennett distanced himself from the comments saying: ‘The comments made are the opinion and conjecture of Mr Worskett and Monitor cannot be held responsible for these. Mr Bennett did attend the same meetings as Mr Worskett during the NHS listening exercise but at no time has he referred to himself as a ‘like minded’ person to Mr Worskett. Similarly there was no coordination of position between Monitor and the NHS Partners Network. ‘ 

David Bennett's bias was brought into question previously when a FOI revealed an email from an unnamed McKinsey executive from May 2010, suggesting it was exploiting its privileged access. It stated: “We have been gathering our thinking on the implications of the new Government programme for the NHS (and) have started to share this with clients. Would you like to meet to discuss it?” The recipient of the email was David Bennett.

None of this would have been necessary if it hadn’t been for the Health and Social Care Act. The manner in which the services are being sold off, serves only to fragment services and pit providers against each other. David Bennett was a former senior partner at McKinsey & Co, the architects of the £20bn savings that are being justified to sell off large chunks of the NHS. The ‘Fair Playing Field is about to launch the NHS into a brave new world, and what’s the betting the outcome will favour the private sector?

Further reading

1. NHS Partners Network - Who are they? here

2. Unedited document of lobbying by NHS Partners Network here 

3. Statement from NHS  Partners Network on Telegraph article - here 

4. The Telegraph, the Think Tank and a Very Dodgy Business - here

5. Unedited response to questions related to above article from NHS Partners Network here 

NHS Partners Network Response Regarding Fair Playing Field

Social Investigations - contacted the NHS Partners Network over their submission to Monitor, regarding the 'Fair Playing Field' review currently taking place.

In order to maintain openess - I have listed the entire response without editing here so readers can make their own mind up.

View the NHS Partners Network submission here.

Starts-----------

Let me make it absolutely clear that contrary to some reports at no point have we asked for relief from corporation tax. We have simply pointed out that in undertaking an analysis of the different economic factors that affect public and private sector providers of care, corporation tax is one of those factors that impacts on the private sector, but not on the public sector. We have also made clear that we recognise there are factors that work the other way and we now wait to see how Monitor's wholly independent and impartial analysis concludes the various factors "net out" and whether anything can or should be done about that overall, in the interests of patients not of providers", that being Monitor's remit.

You may not have seen Monitor's statement today, which makes their position on corporation tax clear and is indeed what we expected. It says:

"There is no draft report of the Fair Playing Field Review and Monitor does not intend to provide a running commentary on the review.  Monitor has yet to decide what recommendations it will make to the Secretary of State. However in the light of recent media speculation, Monitor has decided to clarify the position on one specific issue. While it is the case that corporation tax is one of many distortions that the review is looking at, Monitor will not be recommending that private sector providers should be exempt from paying corporation tax."

Answers to Questions

The Guardian recently revealed how tax breaks were part of the first draft of the review, seen by a 'source' -

The submission you made, which a source has handed to me shows your organisation pushed for this to be looked at as part of the review. Comment: Our submissions in response to public consultations are assumed to be in the public domain anyway and we are happy to share them with anyone who asks to see them.

You state how: 'The issues of a 'Fair Playing Field') must be viewed dispassionately through the lens of impartial and quantified economic analysis' However, despite the emphasis on 'economic analysis', no additional information was provided to suggest how they reached the 2/3% figure  stated in their submission. Q. To what do you base this figure on?  A.The full OHE study was provided as a formal annex to our submission and provides the basis for this analysis.

You also mention concerns over the NHS brand and how this may unduly lead to favourtism as the public trust the name. Q. This is why you attach the NHS to your name?  A. No, our name reflects the fact that we work in partnership with the NHS and are part of the NHS Confederation.

The NHSPN considers that the most illuminating piece of independent work on this complex subject was done in 2009 by the Office of Health Economics. This was part-funded by you. Q. Should this be seen as bias? A. No. The report was co-funded by the NHS Confederation and the report itself makes completely clear that it was wholly independent. It went through OHE's normal peer review processes. We played no part in the actual study and we have no doubt that OHE would take any allegations to the contrary very seriously.

You mention that various public attitude research has shown 'remarkably clearly' that patients are less concerned about who provides care provided it is free at the point of delivery and meets NHS standards. Q. Are you referring to a survey you paid for that was conducted by Brunswick?  A.Yes, supported by other authoritative independent reports which also indicate that most of the public are not worried about who provides their care as long as it is free at the point of delivery and is of high quality. For example, The Provider Diversity poll, (Confederation of British Industry, 2009); and British Social Attitudes 2009 (Sage Publishing, January 2009).

You state that private companies are subject to different regulatory regimes but fail to mention FOI. Q. Would your members be willing to be subject to Freedom of Information and thus being more transparent to the public? A. If there was a general application of FoI to all organisations that are not public sector but have dealings with the public sector, we would of course accept that position. Unless that is the case there is no reason for us to be treated differently to any other non-public sector organisation. The NHS Partners Network fully adheres to the NHS Confederation's policies and practices on transparency.

The submission, shows how you consider training and medical education as not being relevant to the 'Fair Playing Field' despite as you admit, many of your members benefiting from this training. Q. Why should this be left out? A. We do in fact recognise there is a legitimate discussion about medical education and training but there is a need for a much fuller and longer analysis of the issues before any conclusions can be reached. The independent sector also undertakes extensive medical education and training which has not been generally understood or recognised and this also needs to be taken into account.

Given your challenge to the public sector over the issues of pensions, training, medical education and the NHS 'brand' Q. Can you see why the public may view your behaviour as devisive and against collaboration? A. We have not "challenged" the public sector on these or any other "fair playing field" issues. We have simply sought to identify and quantify factors which may mean that, should commissioners wish in the interests of patients, to use alternative providers,  then economic factors do not prevent them from doing so in practice. Establishing a fair playing field will in practice facilitate collaboration.

Your document that was a feedback to members during the Health bill 'pause' stated: 'I had a second lengthy meeting with Stephen to discuss the position with him last week, under the auspices of "Reform", with only a handful of other (all like-minded) people present, including 'David Bennett, the chair of Monitor. He has also consistently taken the same line as us throughout.' Q. Are you confidant this connection you have with Mr Bennett will result in a favourable report? A.We are confident that Monitor will produce a properly considered and completely independent and impartial report and we will, like everyone else, have to wait and see what it actually says.

David Cameron is accused of a 'sham listening exercise' on NHS reform after links to lobbyist are revealed

This article appears in the Observer. See Archive in July and August for more details on this research.

The coalition has been accused of presiding over a sham "listening exercise" on NHS reform last year, as a leaked document reveals how the private health lobby worked with Downing Street behind the scenes to ensure that the new legislation went ahead.

David Worskett, the industry's chief lobbyist, cleared his group's public statements with officials and was personally thanked by No 10 for arranging the publication of a letter from clinicians in support of the reforms during the key "pause" period last year, called to reflect on the proposed reforms.

A series of phone calls between the lobbyist and Downing Street's health adviser was followed by a welcome "addition" to a major speech by the prime minister, according to a five-page document written for members of the private healthcare lobby group. The government claimed at the time that it would call a temporary halt to its efforts to introduce more competition within the NHS through its controversial health and social care bill. The prime minister told doctors and nurses: "We are taking this time to pause, to listen, to reflect and to improve our NHS modernisation plans. Let me be clear: this is a genuine chance to make a difference."



But in the document, obtained by the website Social Investigations, Worskett, director of NHS Partners Network, the lobby group representing companies such as Circle and Care UK, wrote: "I did brief the new No 10 health policy adviser very fully, and indeed 'cleared' our materials with him. I have had several other 'stock take' phone conversations with him.

"We are certainly on No 10's radar – I received an invitation to the PM's big speech last Monday and went. (Incidentally, for those who had the pre-event text, he specifically added a sentence about the importance of patients being able to attend private hospitals if they wanted to, provided NHS standards and prices were being met)."

Intriguingly, Sir Stephen Bubb, whom the government selected to lead a review of the role of competition in the NHS, wrote on his blog at the time: "Just as I was signing off our panel's report on 'Delivering real choice' I get sent a copy of the PM's speech announcing he was accepting many of our key recommendations (although we haven't actually given him the report yet!) … I am unclear why he thought it was a good idea to pre-announce acceptance of much of our report, but it is welcome."

The briefing document also suggests that Bubb, who was chosen by the government to provide an independent report as part of the coalition government's listening exercise, met Worskett to help direct the approach that he would take.

The lobbyist also claimed to have been congratulated on his lobbying by the head of the NHS forum leading the listening exercise, Steve Field.

Worskett wrote: "I had one lengthy, very early discussion with Sir Stephen Bubb at which we agreed on the approach he would take, what the key issues are, and how to handle the politics. He has not deviated from this for a moment throughout the period.

"We organised a letter from our Clinical Forum, on behalf of the 45,000 clinicians who do NHS work from the independent sector, to Steve Field. This was powerful. Steve himself told me how useful and well argued it was and No 10 also thanked me for it."

Shadow health minister Jamie Reed said the document "confirms what many have long suspected to be the case – that the highest levels of government were in talks with cheerleaders for private healthcare on how to ram the privatisation of the NHS through parliament". He added: "We have it in black and white that David Cameron's 'listening exercise' was a sham – he wilfully ignored overwhelming concerns and stuck to his privatisation plans."

Bubb said it was a nonsense to claim that he was "engaged in some sort of conspiracy", adding that it was his role to talk to all parties.

A spokesman for the NHS Partners Network said there was agreement between the government, Bubb and the lobby group, but denied that the process was a sham. He said: "We 'cleared' points with No 10 in the sense that we sought to ascertain the extent to which they were consistent with the government's own thinking, not with the intention or need to secure approval.

"Sir Stephen Bubb has always been wholly independent, so there was absolutely no question of 'telling' him to do anything."

A joint statement from Downing Street and the Department of Health said: "It is nonsense to suggest that the NHS listening exercise was not genuine and robust. This government is committed to protecting an NHS that is universal and free at the point of use.

"Government ministers, officials and the NHS Future Forum met with a large number of representatives from all areas of health and social care during the listening exercise. As you would expect, this included representatives from the private sector."

Further reading:
Over 200 parliamentarians have financial links to companies involved in private healthcare: More
Telegraph's involvement in 'listening exercise' sham. More
Sir Stephen  Bubb and his collusion. More
NHS Partners Network: Who are they? More 
Attacks on the NHS: Article roundup. More

Choice and Competition Chair briefed by Lansley and SPAD before appearance on Health and Social Care Bill Committee

Just when you though the so-called ‘listening exercise could not be more of a sham, a new quotefrom Sir Stephen Bubb has come to light that reveals he was briefed by Lansley and his Special Advisor, Bill Morgan, before an appearance before the Public Bill Committee meeting on the Health and Social care bill.


We already know that the recommendations of the Choice and Competition working group were agreed and included in Cameron’s speech before their report had been given to No10. Here.

We know too that the Lansley, his special advisor and the NHS Partners Network met to comfort the lobby group that competition would remain in the bill before parliament had even had a chance to debate it. Here.

We know Bubb held secret meetings with the director of a private health care lobby group, the NHS Partners Network. A document revealed he had two lengthy meetings with David Worskett and other members of the lobby group. Here.

We also know that many of the members of the lobby group are the employers of our Lords and MPs. Here.

Now we learn that Bubb was having talks and walks along Whitehall in which he said:

‘Well that was spooky! Walking along Whitehall talking to Andrew Lansley's Special Advisor on aspects of the Health Bill I bump into... Andrew Lansley. So some useful lobbying. I'm speaking to the Committee stage of the Health Bill at the Commons on Thursday so I'm getting briefed on key points we want to raise. We strongly support the "any willing provider" concept, just as we opposed the misjudged "preferred provider" policy of Burnham.'

True to his word or at least the words of Lansley and his advisor, Bubb spoke at the committee on behalf of the third sector stating: ‘we are strongly behind the concept of “any willing provider”...The any willing provider approach actually allows us to get stuck in a way that has not been possible before.’

The so-called ‘listening exercise’ was nothing of the sort when it came to Choice and Competition, and the reward for Sir Stephen Bubb is according to Charity Times to become a Peer for the Liberal Democrats and will be ennobled as Lord Bubb of Charlbury.

Attacks on the NHS article roundup

This is the second time I have compiled a list of some of the articles I have put on here. The last time was June so I thought it was time for the next one.

For the June list please see here.

These last two months have seen a slight change in direction from specific MPs to the process of manipulation during the Health bill ‘pause’. In addition the research into the parliamentarian links was wrapped up revealing 60 MPs with financial links to companies involved in private healthcare, bringing the total of all parliamentarians with these links to 200.

I hope you find the list interesting and useful.

1. Unedited document from NHS private healthcare lobby Group Reveals Actions Taken to Ensure Competition Remained in Health bill - This important document, which was handed to Social Investigations, reveals the lobbying process that took place by the private healthcare lobby group, NHS Partner Network in its attempts to ensure competition remained a big part of the Health and Social Bill during the listening exercise. Newspapers, think tanks and secret meetings are all revealed here.

2. Key Member of NHS Future Forum Colluded with Lobby Group over Competition - The Head of a voluntary association who was a key member of the NHS Future Forum during the government’s ‘pause’, colluded with a private healthcare lobby group to agree a message, promoting the benefits of competition in the Health and Social Care bill. Here.

3. Health Minister and Lansley’s Special Advisor held Secret Meetings with Private Health Care Lobby Group to ‘reassure’ Before Parliament Aware of Bill - A separate document has revealed a top-level political trio, held a secret meeting with a private healthcare lobby group to reassure them about the likely calming of opposition to the healthcare reform, two months before the bill was even introduced to parliament. Here.

4. The Telegraph, the Think Tank and a Very Dodgy Business  - The document from the NHS Partners Network, revealed an extraordinary revelation that the Telegraph allowed its editorial to be ‘orchestrated’ by a healthcare lobby group, according to the words of the its director in a document meant for its members eyes only. Here.

 

5. Over 60 MPs Connected to Companies Involved in Private Healthcare - In total 65 MPs have financial links to companies involved in private healthcare. Of them, 52 are Conservative MPs, 9 are Labour MPs, and 3 are Liberal Democrats, leaving 1 other from another party. This means, 79% of MPs with these links are Conservative. Here.

 

6. NHS Partners Network – who are they? – This private healthcare lobby group have been playing a key role in the Health and Social Care bill, having met with Lansley in 2007 to ‘discuss’ the draft health bill. Find out who they are and their members links to our Lords and MPs. Here.

 

7. The Telegraph: Pushing Circle’s Agenda - If we are to believe the content of the Daily Telegraph’s recent editorial, titled ‘Hope for the NHS’*, then we can all breathe a sigh of relief, pack up your placards, the NHS it would appear, is saved. At least that’s the message being propagated in an extraordinary campaign being run by a so-called ‘quality paper’ on behalf of Circle Health. Here.

 

8. Reform - Setting the Agenda with Unknown Others – Reform is a right-wing think tank that claims to be ‘independent’. Like many think tanks they have charity status, although when you look at their work, it is hard to see where the charitable part exists. They are setting the agenda for our public services in meetings that only they know who was in attendance. They do this by holding them under the Chatham House Rules. See who their corporate partners, the beneficiaries of the changes to the NHS they help promote. Here.

 

9. Corporate Britain: Parliamentary Rules Not Fit For Purpose - The rules that MPs and Lords are legally obliged to abide by, have failed to prevent the corporate takeover of our politics, leaving our democracy in a parlous state. Here.

 

10. A dereliction of duty: The BBC's failure to challenge Lansley's healthcare connections - The BBC admit to not challenging Andrew Lansley on his links to companies involved in private healthcare throughout the process of the Health and Social Care bill. Here.

NHS Partners Network response to Telegraph article

 

The NHS Partners Network have responded to the article linking them to Reform, and the Daily Telegraph. The statement is written in full below along with the quote, which I used from the document written by the director of the NHS Partners Network. I will be contacting them back in due course in which I will be expecting honest answers.

To view the article see here.
To view the unedited document see here.

The quote used:

"And the whole sequence of Telegraph articles and editorials on the importance of the Government not going soft on public service reform, including some strong pieces on health, is something I have been orchestrating and working with Reform to bring about.’ - David Worskett – Director of NHS Partners Network – Communication document written on 20^th May 2011

-->

The statement

-->

3 August 2012

Statement for Social Investigations from the NHS Partners Network

Your most recent blog suggests, completely wrongly, the existence of an orchestrated plan involving the NHS Partners Network, Reform, and the Daily Telegraph, to promote a particular and entirely legitimate viewpoint about the best way to deliver the future security of the NHS at the time of the debate about the Government's health reforms.

Of course there was discussion and coordination between a variety of representative organisations who held similar views of the reforms. This is an acceptable, and expected, approach and one which was also taken by many others including those with very different views to our own.

But the quote you take from the internal NHS Partners Network document which was "handed" to you does not say there was, and should not be taken in any way to imply, "orchestration" with the Daily Telegraph or indeed any other media. Like everyone else advancing legitimate points of view in the debate, there was a desire to persuade the media of the validity of particular arguments, but totally to respect editorial independence which, in the case of the Daily Telegraph, we always assumed to be absolute, as indeed it was.

We know that you do not support independent sector involvement in healthcare. You are entitled to express your view just as we are entitled to express ours. We welcome open debate of these matters. But, in the interests of accuracy and fairness, we would urge you to amend your blog so that it properly represents the words that were actually written and does not misrepresent the position of others.