Many of those who comment on the NHS have kicked up a stink about new top appointments (advisors, the DHSC PS, The NHSE chair, the NHSE CEO and many others)...
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Many of the criticisms from left wing commentators have focussed on the previous affiliations of the advisors or new leaders (eg they once advised a private health firm) as though that means their agenda will be driven by their past affiliations...
I think you’ll generally find that what happens at the coal face bears little resemblance to what anyone “in charge” tried to do. I’m sure it’ll change the slant of some higher level management graphs, but little else about how we operate (Scotland centric view).
Simon Stevens, for example, was alleged to be driving an agenda of privatisation and americanisations for the NHs because he previously worked for UnitedHealth.
But he didn't. He had some bad ideas but they were not driven by an americanisations agenda...
The thing that critics ought to care about is the competence and capability of the top appointments. The track record of insider "NHS people" has been piss poor. The NHS has suffered from bad leadership and management...
Previous affiliation is a poor predictor of which policies they will pursue. I'd happily live with good, competent leaders and advisors from anywhere rather than incompetent insiders with poor records...
We should judge the new batch on what they do and what they achieve, policy by policy, action by action. Competence will matter far more than prior affiliation and being an NHS insider has poor correlation with competence of effectiveness...
Comments
This is usually completely nuts in practice...
But he didn't. He had some bad ideas but they were not driven by an americanisations agenda...