Health regulators may be merged
- Details
- Published: Friday, 10 February 2017 12:38
- Written by News Editor
- Hits: 4198
The biggest shake-up of health regulation for more than a century is being planned by ministers according to a report in The Times. Under proposals to be published soon some of them could be merged, including the GDC. The Times has now published letters by Mick Armstrong chair of the BDA and well-known GDP Charles Lister giving their opinions on this proposed change.
The Times understands that a plan due to be unveiled soon by the Professional Standards Authority, includes far-reaching proposals. Under one option, nine regulators would be merged, with one organisation registering all health professionals and carrying out disciplinary procedures. Separate licences would still be issued allowing staff to work as doctors or nurses.
Another option would be to merge the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council into a core regulator, while unifying dentists’, pharmacists’ and opticians’ watchdogs into a “High Street health” regulator. A third body would cover professions such as podiatrists, osteopaths and physiotherapists.
Nine regulators oversee doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals at present, with each having separate standards, codes of conduct and investigatory methods. The NMC regulates more than 600,000 nurses and midwives while the General Chiropractic Council covers only 3,000 practitioners.
Merging could cut the £200 million annual cost of regulation by 15-18 per cent by ending duplication, according to one estimate. Regulators themselves want change, saying that they are bound by outdated and inflexible laws that result in cumbersome investigations. The challenge, says The Times is enacting reforms that protect patients better but do not throw a vital part of healthcare into years of uncertainty and professional bickering.
Letter to The Times by Mick Armstrong:
Sir, Dentists have had to contend with the most expensive and least effective health regulator in Britain, but it is unclear to us if the government can simply “merge” these problems away.
We can understand the appeal of a super-regulator among ministers. Change is needed, and here is one legacy that will not cost the government a penny, as it is fellow health professionals who will be left to pick up the tab through their registration fees. The challenge will be to secure real efficiencies without losing vital expertise. Our priority is that patients and practitioners end up with a body that really understands dentists and dentistry.
Mick Armstrong
Chairman, British Dental Association
Letter by Charles Lister:
Sir, As a dentist I have direct experience of working under the threat of a dysfunctional regulator (“One watchdog for doctors and nurses would cut red tape and save £200m”, Feb 8).
The modern General Dental Council sees itself as the first point of contact, a complaint-handling agency of choice, instead of the regulator of last resort. Up to 10 per cent of the profession, highly regarded by the Care Quality Commission, is under its “fitness to practice” cosh at any time.
What’s worse is that we dentists pay for it (nearly £900 each, per year) to watch this broken organisation squander its resources on a very expensive office refurbishment and on complaints, many of which would be better dealt with in the workplace.
A super-regulator that absorbed this dreadful body would most welcome — the sooner the better.
Dr Chas Lister
West Wellow, Hants
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report