Video: Every Case Tells a Story| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

Rheum’s Role in the New National Health Service

Alan J. Silman, MD  |  Issue: April 2007  |  April 1, 2007

Alan J. Silman, MD

The National Health Service (NHS) is still, some 60 years after its founding, considered one of my country’s greatest strengths. It promises healthcare “free at the point of delivery,” funded from general taxation and providing access to necessary services for everyone, independent of income and means. There is a continuing attachment to this notion across the political spectrum and the relative credence given to promises to maintain this concept has been similar among political parties at every general election.

NHS Today

Reading the tabloid press, one would be forgiven for believing that the basic tenets underlying the NHS are under severe threat. In truth, they are not—but there are seismic changes in the way healthcare will be delivered in the future. History will judge whether reforms will deliver the quality and efficiency politicians desire. What is certain is that these changes will affect U.K. rheumatologists; their concerns and anxiety are palpable at every level. Some see nothing but doom and gloom (and early retirement as leading to some form of salvation), while there are the entrepreneurs who see the opportunities to deliver a level of service to which they have always aspired.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

What is the nature of this revolution? Since its inception, the NHS has been both purchaser and provider of both primary and secondary healthcare. Whereas hospital doctors were salaried full-time employees, primary care physicians (or general practitioners—GPs) secured themselves “independent contractor” status. The GPs provided primary care within the NHS, but as a delivery and business model they had some freedom to develop. Access to hospitals was channeled via GP gatekeepers. A geographically devolved system decided what secondary care was needed and aimed to ensure that there were services to meet these demands. In comparison with their GP colleagues, hospital consultants had nationally fixed salaries that were (apart from various extra merit award schemes) independent of performance. In this model, the salaries of hospital consultants mirrored the situation of U.K. hospitals as institutions because their funding was determined from a historical baseline and incentives to improve were limited.

During the 1980s and 1990s the conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and subsequent prime ministers attempted to stimulate improvement by marking the difference between purchasers and providers of secondary care. They achieved this goal by putting GPs in a pivotal position to purchase healthcare for their patients from the available secondary care providers. As a result, patients found themselves having their hip replacements performed at the other end of the country as hospitals began to compete on price and waiting time.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Page: 1 2 3 4 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:InsurancePractice SupportResearch Rheum Tagged with:FundingHealthcarehospitalinsuranceNational Health Service (NHS)Researchrheumatology

Related Articles

    Speak Out Rheum: How the U.K. and U.S. Healthcare Models Stack Up

    May 1, 2013

    A national, socialized medical system has significant advantages over the often-fragmented, unequally distributed U.S. system of healthcare, says one rheumatologist

    EULAR 2014: Shorten Delay for Access to Rheumatologic Patient Care

    September 1, 2014

    Rheumatologists, general practictioners discuss ways to improve their connection, remove barriers to patient care

    English Hospitals Divert Ambulances After Ransomware Cyber Attack

    May 12, 2017

    LONDON (Reuters)—Hospitals and doctors’ surgeries across England were forced to turn away patients and cancel appointments on Friday after a nationwide ‘ransomware’ cyber attack crippled some computer systems in the state-run health service. The U.K. National Health Service (NHS) said 16 organizations had been affected by the cyber attack but said it had not been…

    Eric Bloodaxe and the Etiology of Paget’s Disease

    October 1, 2009

    The Vikings were in need of a few good rheumatologists

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences