ACEVO: Not Neutral Over Health Bill Outcome

EMAIL FROM ACEVO TO MONITOR

A new set of communications has brought into question the neutrality of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO), on the outcome of the Health and Social Care bill.

When the Health and Social Care bill came to a shuddering halt following widespread rejection across the medical profession, the government paused the process to set up a Forum in what turnedout to be a faux ‘listening exercise.’

The head of the ‘Choice and Competition’ element to the Forum was Sir Stephen Bubb, the Chief Executive of ACEVO. Sir Bubb’s preference for competition in the NHS was no secret; he openly calledfor the “health and social care market to be opened up” and consistently voiced his support for more competition.

However, throughout the period of the farcical‘listening exercise’, ACEVO said they did not take a position on the Health and Social Care bill, and were neither for it or against it. This view was repeated in March 2012 when they said "ACEVO has not taken a position on the controversial health bill as a whole."

The email
However, a Freedom of Information request has unearthed an email written on the 17^th August 2011, just after the ‘listening’ period that brings this statement into serious doubt. The author of the email is unknown because the name was redacted. The person thanked David Bennett, the head of the NHS regulator Monitor, for a ‘roundtable summary.’ It stated how it was good to see…that so many participants…place ‘choice’ at the top of priorities for Monitor.’ If ACEVO were not taking a position on the Health bill, then why are ACEVO in an email to Monitor saying it is 'good' people at the meeting were placing 'choice' as a priority for Monitor. Surely, if they do not take a position such a priority would be neither good nor bad as far as ACEVO are concerned.

Furthermore, the author of the email also suggested Monitor hold a 'desecrate' (discreet) meeting with ACEVO members to 'bounce ideas off and sound them out on reform and competition'. Why was it suggested to make this meeting discreet?  What did they have to hide?

ACEVO did indeed attend a roundtable meeting with Monitor hosted at the offices of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, with representatives from voluntary organisations that included CEOs from Asthma UK, Action on Hearing loss and Diabetes UK. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the new regulators' new role and purpose'.

Lobbying letter

This email follows on from the recent revelation uncoveredby Social Investigations that Sir Stephen Bubb had teamed up alongside private healthcare trade and lobby group, the NHS Partners Network to urge Jeremy Hunt not to water down the secondary legislation, S.75 privatisation regulations. The letter carried the ACEVO logo, which strongly suggests this lobbying letter was in agreement with ACEVO and not Sir Stephen Bubb acting alone. Acevo are not ambivalent to the outcome of the the Health and Social Care bill, but have actively lobbied to ensure competition remains a key component of the new NHS.

ACEVO have twice been contacted to answer questions on their neutrality and have so far refused to answer.


Questions
The questions are below and we welcome a response at any time.

1) If ACEVO were not taking a position on the Health bill, then why are ACEVO in an email to Monitor saying it is 'good' people at the meeting were placing 'choice' as a priority for Monitor. Surely, if they do not take a position such a priority would be neither good nor bad as far as ACEVO are concerned?

2) Also, the names are redacted - who wrote the email?

3) The author of the email also suggested Monitor hold a 'desecrate' (discreet) meeting with ACEVO members to 'bounce ideas off and sound them out on reform and competition'. Why was it suggested to make this meeting discreet? 

4) The letter is sent with the ACEVO logo on it. It is therefore logical to assume, this position is that of ACEVO and not Sir Stephen Bubb. Is this the case?

5) Was this letter written by both Sir Stephen and David Worskett?

6) By sending this letter out on behalf of ACEVO, is it right to assume members of ACEVO were contacted about this before the letter went out? If not, then is it normal practice to send out lobbying letters on behalf of the membership without consent?

7) Finally, I have looked for your membership list but it appears to be hidden. Why is this, given the moves towards transparency? In http://www.acevo.org.uk/Page.aspx?pid=2150

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

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.

The Telegraph, the Think Tank and a Very Dodgy Business

"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

This extraordinary sentence is written by the director of private health lobby group David Worskett, as part of an overall feedback for the NHS Partners Network’s members towards the end of so-called ‘listening period’ in the Health bills passage.

The document, which landed into the hands of Social Investigations, has not only revealed the true nature of the lobbying that took place, during the ‘pause’, but also according to the document, revealed a coordinated response between a national newspaper, a healthcare lobby group, and a right-wing think tank to make sure the government didn’t go ‘soft’ on reforms to the public sector, including the NHS.

In the memorandum under the title: ‘the Media’, Mr Worskett stated how the lobby group had agreed to ‘up’ the profile on ‘key issues’ without ‘inflaming the debate.’ A fine line to tread at a time when the opposition to the bill was near total across the medical profession, and especially so, given the absence of any private health company representatives in the NHS Future Forum, the group set up to in order to ‘pause, listen and reflect’ on the content of the existing Health and Social Care Bill.

So who are the connections at Reform?

One key member of Reform is the Deputy Director, Nick Seddon, who was formally the head of communications for private hospital company Circle. Mr Seddon was very active promoting the benefits of competition in the Telegraph during the so-called ‘listening period.’

Circle is a member of the NHS Partners Network, who employ Mark Simmonds the MP for Boston and Skegness, for £50,000 per year as a strategic advisor. Not only this, research conducted by Social Investigations found all the founders are linked to the Conservative party, and three of the five trustees have given money to the Conservative party. The research resulted in a complaint being sent to the charity commission, in which a decision awaits. 

David Worskett

The Telegraph connection – the ‘listening period’
On 18^th May 2011, just two days before Mr Worskett wrote his feedback to the lobby group members, Mr Seddon appearedin the Telegraph under the title: ‘Why the NHS needs a regulator.’ Aghast at the way Monitor’s role was changing from promoting competition to promoting patient’s interests, Mr Seddon wrote in the paper to express his frustration. ‘As Mr Clegg goes around 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", he fails to notice that the two are not in conflict and competition is actually in the best interests of patients.’

This article followed another piece, written two days previously, where Mr Seddon announcedhow Reform had published six case studies on the benefits of open competition in public services. Only one example was to do with healthcare. These were just two examples of many articles in which the Telegraph provided a platform for the NHS Partners Network to promote the interests of its members, and the MPs and Lords working for those companies.

Nick Seddon

If Nick Seddon wasn’t writing an article in favour of competition, then co-founder of Reform, Andrew Haldenby was appearing in the paper promoting the benefits of the cuts to the NHS such as his April 2011, piecetitled: ‘These ‘cuts’ might do the NHS some good’. Other Telegraph journalists willfully joined in. Health correspondent Martin Beckford, and Health editor Rebecca Smith both loyally carried messages from the lobby group director David Worskett in several articles. All of them published during the ‘pause’ period.

At this point it is worth noting that Reform a self-proclaimed ‘independent’ charity has many corporate partners involvedin health: Aviva, BMI healthcare, Capita, GE Healthcare, McKesson to name but a few. Are these a genuine independent charity or more a vehicle to lobby for the handing over of public services into the hands of corporations they appear to represent?

Telegraph editor Tony Gallagher

So David Worskett the lobby group’s director wasn’t exaggerating when he said he was ‘orchestrating’ the material that the Telegraph editorial allowed to go in unchallenged. David Worskett said to Social Investigations that the quote "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." 

As head of the ‘Choice and Competition’ within the NHS Future Forum, Mr Bubb was a key person to target for lobbying. It is important to remind you at this point how David Worskett and Stephen Bubb had met early on into the ‘listening period’, where they had one ‘lengthy’ discussion which they had agreed ‘on the approach he would take’, what the ‘key issues’ are, and how to ‘handle the politics’. He hadn’t the document revealed, ‘deviated from this for a moment throughout the period.’

Mr Bubb and Mr Seddon are both on very good terms, as revealed in a postwritten by Sir Stephen Bubb on his blog a week before the official launch of the NHS Future Forum on the 31^st of March 2011.

He gushes: ‘So a somewhat bleary eyed early morning start to get to Canary Wharf for a big Reform conference on the Big Society. I was on the opening panel, chaired by my favourite think tank leader, Nick Seddon.’

The articleBubb ‘wrote’ for the Telegraph tells us with no hint of irony that: ‘There are vested interests’. He wasn’t however talking about his fellow collaborators with whom he made agreements, but meant, ‘principally the health service unions’.  He puts words in their mouth by stating: ‘They (the unions) say the reforms are ideologically driven, essentially privatisation by another name.’ Competition according to the unions he argues ‘will benefit the shareholders of multinational private companies’.

Yes Mr Bubb, that is exactly what will happen, and with your help.

The role of a journalist ought to be to research thoroughly the facts of any subject matter and report the findings based on what is found. A newspaper has a responsibility to provide this information fairly and honestly. What does this say about the current editor of the Telegraph Tony Gallagher?  The very idea that a member of a lobby group orchestrated the Telegraph’s editorial ought to bring shame on the paper, and embarrassment to those associated with it.

The Telegraph are not alone, all papers and media allow differing voices to appear in the media but the opposing voices are not necessarily challenged. Rather they are allowed to sit side by side to leave people to decide what is right and wrong. 

The corporate owned media cannot be trusted, ‘journalists’, who willingly promote the wishes of a private healthcare lobby group with challenge, are nothing more than spokesperson’s for that organisation and their motives. Possibly the Telegraph owners, the twins Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, who are worth £1.8 billion and live as tax exiles, will say a job well done.

NHS Partners Network – who are they?

The start

The NHS Partners Network formed in 2005 to provide a voice for private health companies, and was initially made up of organisations involved in the government’s Independent Sector Treatment Sector programme (ISTC). The ISTC initiative was to open up non-emergency treatments to the private sector that would operate (no joke intended) from treatment centres based within NHS hospitals.    

When a leaked document from the Health care Commission raised questions over the quality standards within the ISTCs, the NHS Partners Network used its influence to make sure a report on ISTC’s was less critical than otherwise would be.

In 2007, they were voted on to the NHS confederation, the main representative organisation for organisations offering NHS services.  Since the initial ISTC days, the Network has expanded to include companies and organisations providing services to the NHS.

Social Investigations conducted Lords research

Why do they have influence?
The NHS Partners Network is largely made up of private healthcare companies, with a couple of non-profit organisations thrown in. Their current members list contains 7 companies with financialconnections to MPs, Lords or former MPs.

A few examples of this are:

Alliance Medical Limited: 
www.alliancemedical.eu.com– Alan Milburn Alliance Medical runs diagnostic services for the NHS, including in Birmingham and Falkirk. UNISON reportedthat services were giving patients sub-optimal care, losing the NHS money because of below-capacity uptake, and pressurising hospitals into using private sector treatments.

Care UK: 
www.careuk.com– Andrew Lansley John Nash the Chairman of Care UK gave donations of £21,000 to run Lansley’s office when he was shadow health minister. Bridgepointwho have Lord Patten of Barnes on their books purchased Care UK.

Circle: 
www.circlehealth.co.uk– Mark Simmonds MP is a strategic advisor - the self-styled “social enterprise” that became the first private company to take over the management of an NHS hospital, is owned by companies and investment funds registered in the British Virgin Islands, Jersey and the Cayman Islands. SeeCorporatewatch ‘An unhealthy business’

The full list of members is below.

How have they used their influence?

When you have connections like they have it certainly provides a platform to being able to obtain high-level meetings.

According to their 2007/08 annual report, they held ‘Major high-level’ meetings with

• Andy Burnham the Minister of State for Health. 
• Mark Britnell, who was then the Director-General of Commissioning and System Management for the Department of Health. Mr Britnell has since moved to the private sector as Global Head of Health for business service giant KPMG, He famously said in 2010, while discussing reforms to a private healthcare conference: “In future, The NHS will be a state insurance provider not a state deliverer”, and that “The NHS will be shown no mercy and the best time to take advantage of this will be in the next couple of years'.
• Mark Simmonds as Conservative junior minister for Health Spokesman

The latter raises some serious questions as to what part of the draft bill was influenced by the network. In addition to this according to their 2007/08 Annual Report, in October 2007, they held 'informal conversations with Andrew Lansley' and the Conservative party conference, and perhaps more importantly, held a 'meeting with Lansley on the Conservative party's draft bill.'

The latter suggests that they had advanced warning of the bill and parts of its content which they may have influenced. When we consider who their members are (listed below) this might be considered to be giving them an unfair advantage and certainly more notice that the public were given.What was said? Did they put in anything to do with competition? Lansley had competition in mind when writing the White Paper, he just didn't bother telling the public who he is meant to represent.

Health and Social Care bill

In 2008 they had a Meeting with then shadow health secretary, Andrew Lansley, on matters to do with the Conservative party’s draft bill.

In October 2010, Simon Burns (the Minister for Health), Earl Howe, and Andrew Lansley’s Special Advisor, Bill Morgan, attended two meetings with David Worskett, the director of the NHS Partners Network. In the meetings, the ministers reassured the lobby director that opposition to parts of the bill increasing competition would soon ‘dissipate’.

A further meeting head with Earl Howe and Simon Burns on the 19^th May, 2011, went well. Earl Howe offered a ‘depiction’ of the ‘Government position’, that meant ‘“choice” was a non-negotiable.’ This view led Mr Worskett to say: ‘He could have been delivering a précis of our briefing notes (which of course he had already seen)’. No wonder then that later in the day at a National Stakeholder Forum, Earl Howe ‘endorsed [Mr Worskett’s] arguments twice during the session on competition and regulation’.

Competition in the bill

A newly discovered document has revealed the lobby group held a ‘lengthy’ discussion with the chair of choice and competition of the NHS Future Forum Sir Stephen Bubb, during the Health bill ‘pause’.

In the meeting according to the document which was intended for the eyes of the Network’s members only, Mr Worskett had ‘agreed on the approach he (Mr Bubb) would take, what the key issues are, and how to handle the politics.’ He has, he concluded, ‘not deviated from this for a moment throughout the period.’ Perhaps it is this influence that they are referring to in the annual summary 2010/11 report where they say, one of their ‘main activities’ involved ‘influencing the development of the NHS reforms’.

The NHS Partners Network are not finished lobbying yet, having recently responded to the first stage of the health regulator’s (Monitor’s) review into the fair playing field for NHS providers. They held a meeting under the auspices of the right-wing think tank "Reform" with David Bennett, the head of Monitor who are running the review. The room was full of ‘like-minded’ people. The NHSPN’s press release announcing their submission to the review states: ‘We look forward to working with Monitor throughout the consultation process.’

NHS Partner Network members and connections

3Well Medical: 
alma.3well.info/home

Alliance Medical Limited: 
www.alliancemedical.eu.com– Alan Milburn Alliance Medical runs diagnostic services for the NHS, including in Birmingham[15] and Falkirk.[16] UNISON reported that services were giving patients sub-optimal care, losing the NHS money because of below-capacity uptake, and pressurising hospitals into using private sector treatments 

Alliance Surgical Plc
: www.allsurgical.co.uk/

Assura Medical Limited
: www.assuramedical.co.uk - Baroness Morgan of Huyton Ex-director of failed care home, Southern Cross, is a member of the advisory committee board of Virgin Group Holdings Ltd. Virgin Healthcare Holdings is a subsidiary of them, who took over Assura Medical Limited and renamed them Virgin Care. Vivienne Mcvey is a board member/Director of Virgin Healthcare holdings and has represented NHS Partners Network when giving evidence on behalf of the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Ms McVey is a member of the CQC Providers Advisory Group and was a part of the NHS future forum and is also a member of an 'Independent' Panel set up by Lansley in March  to look at the impact of the NHS Constitution.

Barchester Healthcare: 
www.barchester.com– Baroness Ford – Chairman - Chairman of Grove Ltd, a holding company for for Barchester Health.  Mike Parsons the Chief Executive was voted 2^ndmost influential person in healthcare by the HealthInvestor members.

Baxter Healthcare: www.baxterhealthcare.co.uk/

Bupa Home Healthcare: 
www.bupa.co.uk/home-healthcare– Baroness Bottomley is a director, Lord Edmiston has shares, Lord Leitch is a non-executive director, Baroness Liddell is an Associate member

Care UK: 
www.careuk.com– John (now Lord) Nash the then Chairman of Care UK gave donations of £21,000 to run Lansley’s office when he was shadow health minister. Bridgepoint who have Lord Patten of Barnes on their books purchased Care UK.

Circle
: www.circlehealth.co.uk– Mark Simmonds MP is a strategic advisor -

Connect Physical Health: 
www.connectphc.co.uk

General Health Group
: www.generalhealthcare.co.uk

Harmoni CPO Limited: 
www.harmoni.co.uk

Healthcare at Home: 
www.healthcare-at-home.co.uk

InHealth
: www.inhealthgroup.com

InterHealth Canada: 
www.interhealthcanada.co.uk

Medical Services: 
www.medicalservicesuk.com

Nuffield Health
: www.nuffieldhealth.com



Oasis Dental Care Limited
: www.oasisdentalcare.co.uk– the recently deceased Baron Newton of Braintree

Pfizer Health Solutions UK: 
www.phsownhealth.co.uk–  Owen Smith: MP for Pontypridd. A former UK lobbyist for the American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, where he was head of government affairs from 2005-2007. Lord Goldsmith: Partner in International law firm Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, whose clients include Pfizer.

Primecare Primary Care: 
www.primecare.uk.net

Ramsay Health Care UK
: www.ramsayhealth.co.uk

Spire Healthcare: www.spirehealthcare.com- Cinven purchased them and Cinven are connected to Patricia Hewitt

The Horder Centre
: www.horder.co.uk

UK Specialist Hospitals Limited
: www.uk-sh.co.uk

UnitedHealth UK: 
www.unitedhealthuk.com

Vanguard Healthcare Solutions Ltd: 
www.vanguardhealthcare.co.uk

Health Minister and Lansley’s Special Advisor held Meetings with Private Health Care Lobby Group to ‘reassure’ Before Parliament Aware of Bill

A newly discovered 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.

In October 2010, Simon Burns (the Minister for Health), Earl Howe, and Andrew Lansley’s Special Advisor, Bill Morgan, attended two meetings with a private healthcare lobby group, NHS Partners Network (NHSPN). These meetings have just come to light, following the discovery of another document written by the NHSPN, which revealed the discussions took place three months before the Health and Social Care bill was introduced to parliament.

The purpose of the discussion, according to the document, was to give members an opportunity to ‘express their support for the Government’s policy of Any Willing Provider (explained below) and moves towards greater patient choice.’ 

In addition, the members could express any ‘concerns about whether a level playing field would truly be created’.

So, the NHS Partners Network were able to access the very top of our political tree before our elected politicians had even been given a chance to debate the bill in the Commons. And no minutes were taken.

The meeting informed the network of a ‘command paper’ that was about to be published by the Department of Health, to set out the ‘principles of the NHS reforms more clearly’. They also ‘received assurances’ that the Government will make it clear to commissioners what the Any Willing Provider (AWP) policy means for them, and that they intend to ‘adhere’ to the reform timetable.

The update on where the government was in terms of action was backed up with further assurance that opposition to the AWP policy would not last long. The introductory paragraph of the document highlighted that both ministers and Mr Morgan expressed the view that any problems with the implementation of the AWP policy, such as opposition to commissioning of the independent sector from GP commissioners – were likely to be ‘short-term’ and ‘dissipate’ in the future.

However, several months after the meetings the situation had changed, because once the content of the white paper had been realised, a near total rejection from both the public and the medical profession resulted in the government taking a ‘pause’.

The so-called ‘listening exercise’ required a temporary group to be set up, called the NHS Future Forum which had Sir Stephen Bubb, a David Cameron appointment, in charge of competition and choice. We now know that Sir Bubb worked with the NHSPN, who together influenced the direction of discussion. The newly established forum meant a new set of lobbying was required, and the NHSPN made sure they were at the helm, as revealed in their annual 2010/11 summary report: 


‘This (pause) prompted a major new effort to communicate our views to the NHS Future Forum, and to the top-level political decision-makers to whom the forum will report.’

Part of the concerns the lobby firm had now centred on the policy of ‘Any Willing Provider’ (AWP), which had changed to ‘Any Qualified Provider (AQP). It was a semantic difference that was hailed by the Liberal Democrats as a victory. In reality the AWP commissioning procedure is set by an EU procurement directive, and the term ‘AQP’ does not exist in EU law.  

The British Medical Journal highlighted the significance of this change in an editorialaimed at the media, who at the time had failed to pick up on it: ‘If a future government wishes to bring a health or social care service back into public sector provision (say if the consequences of this reform turn out to be bad for patients) any existing or would-be provider may sue under EU law on anticompetitive practices.’

The NHSPN, however, did not want to take chances over any weakening of competition in the bill, and having ‘agreed on the approach’ to take with Mr Bubb in a previous ‘lengthy’ meeting, they turned their attention to Earl Howe, who would be leading the debate in the House of Lords.

On the 19^th of May 2011, David Worskett, the director of NHSPN, set up another meeting with the Earl. A newly discovered document for the NHSPN’s members revealed that ‘Simon Burns also asked to join the meeting’. Mr Burns’ request to be included, according to Mr Worskett, indicated the recognition by the minister that NHSPN were ‘less than happy about things.’

The meeting went well for the lobbyists. The document revealed that although the ministers were ‘necessarily constrained’ by the fact that everyone was supposed to be listening, they gave ‘every signal possible that they understood and sympathised with our concerns and shared our view of the key issues and priorities.’

Indeed this understanding was absolute. Earl Howe offered a ‘depiction’ of the ‘Government position’, that meant ‘“choice” was a non-negotiable.’ This view led Mr Worskett to say: ‘He could have been delivering a précis of our briefing notes (which of course he had already seen)’. No wonder then that later in the day at a National Stakeholder Forum, Earl Howe ‘endorsed [Mr Worskett’s] arguments twice during the session on competition and regulation’.


The NHS Partners Network are not finished lobbying yet, having recently responded to the first stage of the health regulator’s (Monitor’s) review into the fair playing field for NHS providers. They held a meeting under the auspices of the right-wing think tank "Reform" with David Bennett, the head of Monitor who are running the review. A fair playing field has nothing to do with it. If that were the case, then Simon Burns et al would not have offered a reassurance on policy ahead of a debate in the Commons. The NHSPN’s press release announcing their submission to the review states: ‘We look forward to working with Monitor throughout the consultation process.’

I bet they do.

Unanswered questions

So why were the trio of Simon Burns, Earl Howe and Andrew Lansley’s special advisor, Bill Morgan, holding a meeting to reassure a trade and lobby group, before our elected MPs had even had a chance to debate the bill in the Commons?

Did Bill Morgan pass a message back to Andrew Lansley or did Andrew Lansley pass a message onto NHS Partners Network?

Further notes:

The newly appointed special advisor to Andrew Lansley, Bill Morgan. The former private healthcare lobbyist came under the spotlight in March 2011, following an investigation by transparency campaigners Spinwatch. Mr Morgan had received a list of GPs who were in favour of the reforms, who would represent a ‘public relations coup.’ The list was provided by an outsourcing firm called Tribal, who according to Spinwatch, had ‘£150 million worth of government contracts’, and were connected to some of the new GP Pathfinder Consortia.