Governments often pursue brave, bold new policies. But genuinely brave Government isn’t always about acting; it’s about listening, understanding and acting. And it’s also about admitting when you haven’t got it right. You’d have to have been living on another planet not to know that we have “paused” the Health and Social Care Bill. Our Sheffield conference made it perfectly clear that Liberal Democrats will not sign up to proposals without changes. We understand that this has to be much more than superficial tinkering. The message has been received loud and clear: only substantial changes will do. And that’s exactly what we intend to do. But there has also been another example of how this Government is prepared to listen and to act.
Over the last decade, Cancer Networks have had a crucial role in driving forward improvements in the quality of cancer services and patients’ experience of care. The 28 networks are widely admired for their work in helping improve the commissioning and delivery of cancer care across England. In particular, they have contributed successfully to the establishment of multidisciplinary teams that bring together staff with the necessary knowledge, skills and experience to ensure high quality diagnosis, treatment and care. They have been hugely valuable in helping commissioners, providers and patients work together to plan and deliver high quality cancer services. And importantly they offer a model for other conditions.
Under the proposals outlined in the NHS reform white paper last July, we made it clear – in accordance with the coalition programme – that we would introduce proposals to secure greater clinical involvement and local democratic accountability in health decision making. We wanted to make it natural for doctors to talk to each other and make decisions together, and for local councils and family doctors to come together to make sure that they offer healthcare based on what is needed in your local area. However, because we wanted to devolve power that meant leaving the NHS Commissioning Board and Consortia with discretion about how they would commission and how they would engage clinical expertise. This left open a question about the future of Cancer Networks. We were able to guarantee funding this year but didn’t want to tie the hands of the NHS Commissioning Board thereafter.
We have always said that networks would be well placed to continue to support GP consortia in commissioning cancer services. Whilst saying absolutely nothing to suggest that we were abolishing cancer networks, I recognise that our silence about their future funding caused a huge amount of uncertainty. As the Minister responsible for cancer I’ve listened to the concern that organisations, such as Macmillan Cancer Support, have expressed about the long term future of cancer networks. I’ve listened and made sure that as a Government we act on these concerns.
We’ve used the “pause” in the Health and Social Care Bill to go back to the drawing board and guarantee that cancer networks will now be maintained beyond 2013. As the Minister responsible, I’m delighted that the NHS Commissioning Board will host and support Cancer Networks on a continuing basis, strengthened as a means of bringing together, continuously to improve outcomes for cancer patients. The Coalition Government’s cancer strategy – Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer – published in January 2011 set out our aim of saving at least an additional 5,000 lives a year. Keeping the cancer networks will give them the certainty they need to deliver on that aim.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
What is the tipping point in Palestine Action arrests?
"Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned, they therefore do as they like"
Another Sunday band concert at Magdalen Green #dundeewestend
Andrew Melmoth
ANDERS LARSON
John McHugo
Steve Trevthan
William Wallace
7 Comments
The Coalition Government’s cancer strategy – Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer – published in January 2011 set out our aim of saving at least an additional 5,000 lives a year.
This claim has been shown to be false by Ben Goldacre. Several times.
http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/cameron-still-trots-out-5000-avoidable-cancer
Why are you repeating it? Do you think people are stupid? Is this the deliberate use of a falsehood, or are you unaware of the criticism of the figure?
@g – Maybe the aim is to save at least 5,000 lives a year? Perhaps the stats are crap, but perhaps Mr Burstow still wants to save 5,000 lives a year? So I chose to give Mr Burstow the benefit of the doubt and a) believe that he is probably aware that the actually stats cited are nonsense but b) thinks cancer support networks are good things (I am assuming ‘g’ that you do not actually oppose them) and is therefore c) backing cancer support networks and d) wants to save 5,000 lives, whether the reasoining proposed by Goldacre to a specific inference made by Cameron is accurate.
This article would be more welcome if the LibDems were not presiding over and supporting welfare changes that see Cancer patients – some of them terminal with only months left to live – being found “fit for work”.
I’ve helped, in my charity, many cancer patients to appeal the decisions of the DWP & ATOS. I’ve not lost a case for them yet. Of course, your government will “fix” this by taking away the right to appeal as they are now considering.
@henry
Maybe the aim is to save at least 5,000 lives a year? Perhaps the stats are crap, but perhaps Mr Burstow still wants to save 5,000 lives a year?
Maybe. But why present crap data to argue your case? It sets out the debate using dishonest terms.
So I chose to give Mr Burstow the benefit of the doubt and a) believe that he is probably aware that the actually stats cited are nonsense but b) thinks cancer support networks are good things (I am assuming ‘g’ that you do not actually oppose them) and is therefore c) backing cancer support networks and d) wants to save 5,000 lives, whether the reasoining proposed by Goldacre to a specific inference made by Cameron is accurate.,
So you think it’s ok for Ministers to use information they know is crap if their intention is good?
You are just as responsible for this mess as Lansley.
What have you got to say for yourself?
Clue: 5 letters, starts with S ends with Y.
@g, not really what I was getting at, so much as an overwhelming desire to see you complement a good policy for once rather than simply criticise again and again.
Plus, the reference to the 5,000 stat is purely for use in comparison to Europe, so I am not sure it is ‘false data’ as such. My point was that you need to explain why it must be the same 5,000 as in Cameron’s earlier speech or whether or not it is just a helpful approximate figure… you’ll note that a) the 5,000 figure is not in the same context as Europe this time.
But, to conclude, I just feel this nagging desire to point our every other sentence and bit of information and policy in the article which perhaps you could have spent a tiny bit of your typing time commenting on the bits of the policy that you don’t hate.
could we possibly have an article about last nights panorama programme and the shocking abuse and torture inflicted on the vulnerable patients in a “Private” care home.
Since the programme highlighted the type of “service” & “Quality” of “Care” that “private” companies can take from the Tax payers at “extortionate” rates, whilst treating patients in such an abhorrent manor.
The reforms of the NHS and use of “private” companies to deliver services, needs to be urgently stopped. Sort out the messes and abuses that the private companies are already doing to patients, before contracting out more work to them.