thepolitics.co.uk

Last year BUPA’s 60^th birthday came and went unnoticed by most of the nation, private healthcare is used by less than 8% of the population, and this meagre fraction consists of either of middle-aged, new-age mums topping up their botox or comfortably well-off pensioners seeking to fast-track their hip replacement. So as much as the average taxpayer might grumble about the “sub-standard” healthcare in the UK, or mothers-to-be may threaten to “go private”, beneath a surface of discontent, the signs all seem to indicate that the NHS is more popular than we may think. That or we’re a nation who care more about flat-screen LCD HD-ready TVs and Blu-Ray recordable DVD players than investing in our health, which is a bit of a depressing thought.

Nevertheless, it’s sixty years to the day since Aneurin Bevan played matchmaker and the seemingly unlikely union between healthcare and the state took place under the guise of the National Service Act 1946; no longer would people be embarrassed at the thought of not being able to afford treatment and no longer would the rich be identifiable by their perfect bill of health.

Yet as the nation and the NHS share their Diamond Wedding Anniversary in a bubble of ignorant bliss, exchanging such sickly, romantic gifts as the Labour Party’s ‘Proud of the NHS at 60’ campaign (complete with a matching Facebook group, boasting a whopping 1,062 members, in New Labour’s relentless attempt to be “down with the kids”), it is easy to bask in the NHS’ achievements as they are plastered across the media; just like any other marriage, that of the NHS and the UK has had its turbulent times, so maybe now is a good time to step back and reflect on all that’s happened.

In the honeymoon period, the patriotism and community spirit kindled during the Second World War made the Labour Party’s plans for a state-run health service much easier for the nation to swallow, (except perhaps for the doctors whose mouths were “stuffed with gold”); the costs seemed reasonable and the benefits were expected to be exceptional.

But now six decades have passed, the post-war daze has long since lifted and the honeymoon is over, waiting times are fluctuating, staff are over-stretched, costs have risen over 800% from £200 per person, per lifetime to £1700 and the NHS has been involved in scandal after scandal, from the horrific case of Harold Shipman to the lengthy Bristol Royal Infirmary inquiry; will the NHS be able to take such a strain from another sixty years?

It was said that the welfare state would care for patients “from cradle to grave”, but with superbugs such as MRSA and Clostridium difficile having infected hospitals, is the NHS making the journey shorter for some people?

The UK’s relationship with the NHS has proved a difficult one, and, much like a husband on the verge of a midlife crisis, more often than not the government’s approach to solving problems that have arisen along the rocky road has been to throw money at them; in fact, the latest initiative, the NHS’ National Programme for IT, aside from suffering from serious delays, is estimated to cost anywhere between £20 - £30 billion, (rather wide of the original budget or £2.3 billion).

Both immigration and emigration have further drained already overstretched resources; the former greatly boosting the number patients requiring treatment, and the latter greatly reducing the number of staff available to treat patients. A male nurse in Leeds caring for my great-grandmother told me that he was moving to Australia as soon as he had finished his training, as nowhere trains nurses quite so well as England, he claims, but that there are much better job opportunities abroad.

It seems that after sixty years the marriage between the nation and the NHS has become complacent, stagnant almost, and change is needed to prevent an ugly divorce. And change is already underway, but the measures being implemented could very well be steps in the wrong direction; would health-screening of the over 40s overwork doctors? Does the public really wish to see their GP whilst shopping for sugary snacks and bottles of wine in their local supermarket? And is the government’s aim of reducing all waiting times to a maximum of 18 weeks by December 2008 a political gimmick that will put unnecessary strain on the NHS, which buckles under the weight of its current workload?

Unfortunately, and uncertainly, only time will tell, though maybe the changes that should be made are providing incentives for disheartened practitioners and rewarding those workers already working under intense pressure; after all, without it’s workforce, the NHS is nothing – like a wife without a sexy red dress to keep the husband from straying.