Kate Andrews
Already a subscriber? Log in
The stand-off has instead been between the government and the NHS. There has been confusion over what was a promise from the NHS and what was a ‘scenario’. It has turned into a row over what ministers thought they had negotiated on behalf of patients, what the health service thinks it can deliver — and who makes the decisions. The debate raises questions, not just about timelines and targets, but about power. Even ministers have been left wondering: who controls the NHS? And to what extent can elected politicians really call the shots over what is now one of the ten largest organisations in the world?
Last summer, when Johnson still had control of his government, he decided to raise taxes. He said he would use the money to ‘fix’ social care (which so far means subsidising the asset-rich), but for the first few years the tax revenue would go to the NHS. Behind the scenes, an understanding had been reached between No. 10, the Treasury, the Department of Health and the NHS about what the cash would achieve. The Department of Health supplied modelling suggesting that £8 billion should reduce the waiting list to 5.5 million by 2025 — worse than pre-pandemic levels, but better than where we are now.
Then along came omicron. Hospital caseloads barely reached a quarter of last winter’s peak. But with increasing evidence that booster shots provided the best protection against the new variant, the NHS was put on full alert and brought back its military-style vaccination operation. Once again, the focus shifted, away from playing catch-up to emergency services.
But forecasts for the waiting list had already been slipping months before the new variant arrived in Britain. In September, when the NI hike was finally announced, ministers were given some bad news: the waiting list would have an additional million people on it — roughly 6.6 million by 2025 — and another £2 billion would be needed to achieve this less ambitious target.
By the end of last week, when the so-called ‘elective recovery plan’ was about to be announced, the targets were unrecognisable. The NHS remains committed to delivering 30 per cent more elective activity by 2024-25, as previously agreed. But models show very different outcomes, with NHS modelling estimating that the waiting list in 2025 will have millions more on it than expected last summer.
The NHS waiting list could well be almost twice as long as what ministers thought it might be when they first agreed to the tax hike. But not everyone agrees on what the original ambitions were. The estimate of 5.5 million on the waiting list by 2025 was technically produced by the Department of Health, which puts some distance between the target and the NHS. It’s an age-old tale of two institutions so intertwined that it becomes easy to pass the buck: when something goes right, praise the NHS; when things go wrong, blame the Department of Health.
Regardless, the cash is being spent and taxes will rise in April — as will waiting lists in years to come. Another NHS model shows 75,000 people still waiting a year or more for care by March 2025, up from around 10,000 people estimated when the tax was first agreed. This is probably an optimistic estimate and raises serious doubts about Javid’s pledge of ‘eliminating waits’ that go over this timeframe.
NHS officials are quick to point out that ministers have always said that the picture would get worse, and waiting lists would grow, including when the tax rise was announced. It’s also near impossible to predict just how high waits will rise, as it depends on how many people come forward for treatment. But forecasts exist — they just aren’t shared. Perhaps there’s a reason why these figures are always kept secret: to disguise just how little control the government has over the NHS. It just keeps shovelling money into a system that so often falls short of expectations.
It’s clear from this week’s disputes that the government thought their manifesto-breaking tax hike was going to yield better results. Perhaps that was naive. Or perhaps this is proof of who calls the shots. As a source close to No. 10 puts it: ‘People joke that we’re now a health service with a government attached. They have no idea the truth behind it.’
This article is published in the 12 February edition of The Spectator magazine, out tomorrow.
Because you read about national insurance
Also by Kate Andrews
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in