Monday, 13 May 2013

"We can't go on like this" - Cameron Hires Lobbyist Into the Heart of Government


Number 10 today welcomes Nick Seddon, former lobbyist and private healthcare advocate, into Downing Street to lead on health policy formation. What does this say about Cameron’s real attitude to the lobbying game he has publicly decried? And what kind of policies will Seddon be pushing now? There are good reasons to be concerned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just
beforethe general election, David Cameron declared his opposition to  lobbying, saying “we all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisors for hire... It arouses people’s worst fears and suspicions about how our political system works, with money buying power, power fishing for money and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest...We can't go on like this”

Today, Number 10 will welcome former lobbyist Nick Seddon into the heart of Downing Street, as his health adviser. Seddon’s last role was as deputy director of ‘Reform’ - a free market think tank extensively funded by healthcare and insurance companies. He has openly called for an end to the NHS as we know it, and promoted the idea of an insurance-based system.

Before joining Reform, Nick Seddon was head of communications at private healthcare company Circle - the first company to take over the running of a NHS hospital. 

His role during the passage of the Health and Social Care bill was to lobby key people to defend competition in the bill. His reward? A place in Cameron’s health policy unit,  developing  policies for the 2015 general election.


Private policy Unit
When work begins in the number 10 policy unit, Seddon will find himself working under a team that has both financial connections to private healthcare interests, and a long standing ideological commitment to a system of private health insurance. He told the
Evening Standard “The exact work I do will be for Jo Johnson and the PM to clarify.”

Jo Johnson MP, brother of Boris, was recently appointed Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office to help 2015 Tory manifesto. In July 2010, he received £6,000to his constituency office from Robin Crispin Odey, investorin the aforementioned Circle Health.

In turn Jo Johnson will be under the experienced hand of Conservative policy guru Oliver Letwin, who famously wrote a reportfor the Tory think tank Centre for Policy Studies titled ‘Britain’s Biggest Enterprise, ideas for radical reform of the NHS’. The document, written when Letwin was an advisor on ‘privatisation to overseas government’ asked:

 ‘Might it not, rather, be possible to work slowly from the present system towards a national insurance scheme?  One could begin for example, with the establishment of the NHS as an independent trust, with increased joint ventures between the NHS and the private sector; move on next to the use of ‘credits’ to meet standard charges set by central NHS funding administration for independently managed hospitals or districts; and only at the last stage create a national health scheme separate from the tax system.’


Reform – Tory Think Tank
Nick Seddon’s transfer from Reform to the No10 policy unit is merely the latest example of close links between the supposedly ‘non-party’ think tank, and the Conservative Party. Reform is often used to trail Conservative policies. Seddon’s predecessor at Reform, Elizabeth Truss, wenton to become a Conservative MP, as did its founder, Nick Herbert.  

Reform appears to exist principally as a way for companies to influence the policy agenda. It is part-funded by 35 corporate partners– nearly half of whom are involved in private healthcare, health insurance, and associated businesses - donate at least £8,000 annually to the charitable Reform Research Trust. In 2011, Reform received  the sum of £770,000 from its corporate partners and other sponsors.  In return for the cash, they are involved in research reports, able to sponsor key events with policy-makers present and have their agenda represented in newspapers.

Seddon’s role in the Health and Social Care Act
At Reform, Seddon played a leading role in helping the government push through the Health & Social Care Act  2012. At the end of the so-called ‘listening pause’ granted after massive outcry, David Worskett (director of  healthcare lobby group the NHS Partners Network), produced a memorandum for their members that was obtainedby Social Investigations:

'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.’

Two days earlier, Mr Seddon had appearedin the Telegraph criticizing Clegg for saying that "instead of having a duty to promote competition, Monitor's main duty should be explicitly to protect and promote the interests of patients".  Seddon claimed “the two are not in conflict and competition is actually in the best interests of patients.’

Another Telegraph articleby Seddon highlighted a Reform report, titled ‘It can be done’, praising the increased involvement of private companies in running hospitals in Spain and Germany. Seddon also criticised opponents of the ‘plan to compel hospitals to compete for patients and income’.  

A glimpse of the future?
So what policy ideas can we expect from Nick Seddon?  He is no fan of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). In another Telegraph article, which appeared the day after Andrew Lansley’s 2010 White Paper - he wrote ‘There is no evidence to suggest that they [GPs] have the skills needed, which makes it unlikely that they'll be any good at trying to make hospitals improve what they do and cut their costs…’ However, he would like to see GPs charge for appointments.

Such criticism may be surprisingly welcome to the ears of his new boss, Letwin – whose original post-election blueprint for the NHS did not include Clinical Commissioning Groups, according to Nicholas Timmins' book on the battle over NHS reform.

Seddon’s article goes on to say that ‘all is not lost’, because CCGs could be used as the basis to  move towards a ‘mixed funding insurance model. The £80 billion budget could be allocated to insurers in professional alliances with GP groups…those who can afford to would be encouraged to contribute more towards their care packages’.
Such a move would surely please the corporate partners of Reform, who include the Association of British Insurers and Aviva. A greater role for insurance seems to be Seddon’s key theme – last December he toldthe All Party Parliamentary Group on Primary Care and Public Health that the NHS could learn a 'great deal from insurers in other countries especially those in the private sector.'

He recommended too that the NHS should trial the U.S. system of Accountable Care Organisations (ACOs), which work together to reduce costs. Once services are fragmented, such  schemes could act as a way to bring them back together, but not under public control, rather, under the potential control of insurers.

In the U.S, the ACOs are funded by private health insurance, employer health schemes or the government. According to a report by the leading journal of health policy in the U.S, ACOs have produced mixed results. High set up costs mean ACOs have experienced difficulty in balance the books. There have been concerns that a few ACOs will gain a ‘large share of the market, increasing their bargaining power with private payers and reducing the potential for savings.’

Seddon’s appointment clearly shows Cameron’s hand. It shows yet again the corporate interests driving  the dismantling the NHS, whether through lobbyings like Seddon and Reform, or through their extensive linkswith parliamentarians. Let us not forget, one in fourConservative Lords and 58 Conservative MPs have recent or present financial links to companies or individuals connected to private healthcare. Over twenty of the companies who are listed as corporate partners of Reform also have recent or present financial links to Lords and MPs.

The voices calling for insurance schemes are no longer shouting from the wilderness, but are now at the forefront of Conservative party policy-making. The Health and Social Care Act was a façade. Behind it lay the legal mechanisms that will fragment services and see NHS providers lost forever as increased numbers of services and public resources move into private hands. Will these be the new organisations that make up the ACO system that Seddon wishes to promote? 

This article was cross-posted on Open Democracy

Thursday, 25 April 2013

Breaking the Code and the Healthcare Chain


'In the conduct of their parliamentary duties, Members of the House shall base their actions on consideration of the public interest, and shall resolve any conflict between their personal interest and the public interest at once, and in favour of the public interest.' - the Lord's Code of Conduct

The Lords have spoken. The coalition with a little help from Labour Peer, Lord Warner chose to vote in favour of the government to keep section 75 regulations of the Health and Social Care Act in place. In doing so, they imposed increased legal pressures on the new commissioners to put out services to tender, which will fragment the NHS into the hands of private companies.


The Members’ financial interestsrepresent every stage of the healthcare value chain: from private equity firms that fund private healthcare companies, to holding shares in those same companies. They are Chairmen of companies who run NHS estates, are involved in PFI deals, are partners in legal firms that seal those deals, advisers to private hospitals, they also represent companies in pharmaceutical media, medical equipment, care homes, lobbying, and health insurance.

You name it, the corporations have it covered; and the list of vested interests in both the House of Commons and the Lords is so great, it is effectively a healthcare coup d’état against our parliamentary institutions (see partial list below). Yet all of the peers with such vested interests were able to vote on the Health and Social Care bill and the section75 Regulations, that now threatens to hand over large chunks of the NHS into private company hands.

The public, once again were placed in a situation whereby the future direction of the NHS was in the hands of unelected individuals who have vested interests in the outcome of their vote. One in four ConservativeLords have these interests, as well as one in six LabourLords, one in six CrossbenchLords and one in tenLiberal Democrats. This is democracy today in Britain.

The position they hold blurs the line between public and private duty. Some of the companies who employ Lords have already won contracts in the new NHS since the health bill became an Act; in some casesat the very samemoment the bill was being debated. The outcome of the vote has been made, but the institutional corruption remains.

Below, I have a list of unelected Peers from the upper chamber who represent the corporations that cover every part of the healthcare chain – they have it all wrapped up.

A selection of interests

Frontline services: Lord Nash
When Chairman of Care UK, John Nash – a Conservative Donor – made a donation of £21,000 to then-shadow health secretary, Andrew Lansley, co-author of the Health and Social Care bill. Nash now sits on the free market board of the Centre for Policy Studies, which has produced several papers on dismantling the NHS. Voted to reject the removal of the Section 75 regulations.

PFI: Lord Blackwell
Chairman of Interserve, consultancy to NHS and private healthcare firms. Involved in PFI hospitals. Company has enterednew avenues within the care industry made possible by the Health and Social Care bill and by his vote on the bill. Voted to reject the removal of Section 75 regulations.





Private Equity:
Lord Patten of Barnes and BBC Chief - Adviser to private
equity firm Bridgepoint, who purchased Care UK – Have been involved in 17 healthcare deals over recent years – did not vote. See his article here.
Management consultancy: Lord Hamilton of Epsom - Has a directorship with MSB Ltd (managing consultancy), who have NHS, Bupa, Nuffield Health and CareUK listed as their clients. Quotes: 'My Lords, surely one of the problems of the National Health Service is the wall of money that was thrown at a totally unreformed NHS by the last Government? Do we not need management consultants now to show us the way forward.’ See article on him here. Voted to reject the removal of the Section 75 regulations.

Legal: Lord Clement-Jones
Managing partner with global law firm DLA Piper who provide lobbying services to clients in the health and social care sectors. Lord Clement-Jones nominated Lord Hameed for his peerage. Lord Hameed sits on the board of Alpha hospitals, part of the Alpha Healthcare (C&C Alpha/C&C business solutions) group. The Alpha group has made significant donations to the Liberal Democrat party. Voted to reject the removal of Section 75 regulations.

Shares: Baron Higgins
Holds in excess of £50,000 of shares in Lansdowne UK Equity Fund, backers of private hospital group Circle Holdings. Circle won the first contract to run a NHS hospital – they are advised by Conservative MP Mark Simmonds. Voted to reject the removal of Section 75 regulations.

Litigation: Lord Lang of Monkton
Conservative – Director of Marsh & McLennan Companies that “help hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical companies and industry associations understand the implications of changing policy environments”. Head of ACOBA – a so-called independent body that advises on business appointments. See article on him and them here. Voted to reject the removal of Section 75 regulations.

Care Homes: Lord Popat
Founder of TLC group Ltd, who run private care homes. Lord Popat gave David Cameron a donation, as a gift, of £25,000 a week after the Conservatives’ unveiled their health ‘reforms’. David Cameron made the businessman a peer shortly after getting into 10 Downing street. Voted to reject the removal of Section 75 regulations.



Pharmaceutical Communications
– Lord Chadlington Chief Executive of Huntsworth Communications group – have major pharmaceutical companies as clients. Company gave £15,000 to Conservatives in August 2011, has given money every year since 2008. Labour’s Lord Puttnam is a director. Liberal Democrat’s Lord Alliance has shares. Neither member voted. For more on Lord Chadlington and Lord Alliance – see hereand here.

Pathology:Lord Warner
An adviser to Pathology company, Synlab Ltd. He is a former adviser to Apax Partners, one of the leading global investors in the healthcare sector. Chose to vote against his party and with the coaltion (Labour).

Insurance: Lord Sharman
Chairman of Aviva, has directorship and Shareholdings in Aviva plc. Baroness McDonagh: Non Executive Director of Standard Life plc, which offers private health insurance. Did not vote.

Recruitment: Baroness Bottomley
Chair of Odgers Berndtson – recruitment company providing people for NHS Management positions. Shares in Broomco Ltd, a holding company of International Resources Group Ltd, which owns Odgers Berndston. Richard Boggis-Rolfe, the chairman of Odgers Berndtson, has given £207,500 in donations to the Conservative party between 28/09/2006 to 03/03/2010. Voted to reject the removal of Section 75 regulations.

Out of Hours: Lord Filkin (Labour)
Adviser to outsourcing giant Serco. Serco run out of hours services and were caught fiddling their data. Continue to be given contracts despite this. Did not vote.


Tuesday, 23 April 2013

Healthcare Coup: The Lords Didn't Save us the First Time


Lord Tim Clement-Jones
In early 2012 the Lords voted in favour of the Health and Social Care bill, the final step in turning it into an Act. As the Lords sat in the house to debate and vote on the bill, research conducted by Social Investigations revealed the Lords were riddled with private healthcare interests across all parties. Despite these recent or present financial links to private companies involved in healthcare, they were allowed to debate and vote. 

Now, for the second time of asking the Lords are about to pass or reject a key piece of legislation that will affect the NHS to such an extent its very existence is in the balance. Will they or will they not choose to vote for or against section 75 Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act. If it is the former, then if passed will sound the death knell to the NHS.


Section 75 or the NHS (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) (No. 2) Regulations 2013 to give it it’s full title, will potentially force the new Clinical Commissioning Groups to tender out all hospital and community carework for GP patients through competitive markets run according to EU competition law. It would open up all areas of NHS provision that interest the private sector to competition. The NHS as we know it will end, providers will be pitted against one another, with traditional local hospitals against multinational corporations. The legal teams of both sides will be among the winners and deciders of what happens to our services. But it is for global services firms such as DLA Piper, where Nick Clegg’s wife was formerly a partner in charge of competition law work, that the prizes are in store.

One global legal partnership heavily involved in European competition law is DLA Piper, who provide lobbying, public affairs and trade policy services as well as advice on how to get access to public service delivery contracts. One partner of the firm who is part of the Liberal Democrat party preparing to make their choice on the vote on the regulation is Lord Tim Clement-Jones.

The Liberal Democratic Health team is led by Baroness Judith Jolly and the third member is Baroness Shirley Williams, neither possesses the legal expertise needed to understand the implications of the regulations by reading them themselves. However, lawyer Lord Clement-Jones who makes up the other member, will be an influential figure in the decision the Liberal Democrats make on the regulations.

This is of deep concern if you are keen to maintain a cohesive and comprehensive NHS. The Liberal Democratic Peer is a patron of the health think tank 2020Health, who have four peers as patrons, all with financial interests in private healthcare. 2020health Chief Executive Julia Manning has openly called for an increase in private healthcare, and when challenged by Social Investigations on whether their membership contains health insurance companies, they refused to answer. However, former 2020Health Chairman, Tom Sackville – a former Conservative minister – is the current CEO of the International Federation of Health Plans, which represents one hundred private health insurance companies in 31 countries.

Lord Clement-Jones involvement, is the tip of a parliamentary private healthcare iceberg. The Members financial interests represent every stage of the healthcare value chain from private equity firms that fund private healthcare companies, to holding shares in those same companies. They are Chairman of companies who run NHS estate, who are involved in PFI deals, partners in legal firms that seal those deals, advisors to private hospitals, they represent companies in pharmaceutical media, medical equipment, care homes, lobbying, and health insurance. You name it, the corporations have it covered and the list of vested interests in both the House of Commons and the Lords is so great, is effectively a healthcare coup d’état of our parliamentary institutions.

We are in the hands of a group of 145 Lords and Baronesses who have recent or present financial interests private healthcare. Are there enough Peers with a conscience to prevent this regulation being passed? In an ideal world they wouldn’t have the vote at all, for their vote is akin to handing a key to a burglar who knows what lies within. In the meantime Baroness Jolly and Shirley Williams may well ask if Lord Clement-Jones is truly on the side of the NHS or whether he is part of the gang who will all be taking their slice from the NHS pie.

This article was cross-posted on OpenDemocracy