- Allyson M Pollock, professor and director,
- Graham Kirkwood, research fellow
- 1Centre for International Public Health Policy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9AG
- Correspondence to: A M Pollock allyson.pollock{at}ed.ac.uk
- Accepted 16 March 2009
The ISTC programme: time for an overhaul
Since 2000, the Department of Health has had an explicit policy of using NHS funds to contract out some elective surgery and associated clinical services to the private for profit sector. This policy of commercialisation is known in England as the Independent Sector Treatment Centre (ISTC) programme, under which the government intends that the private health care industry will provide elective surgery and other clinical services at a projected total cost to the NHS of over £5bn ($7.3bn, €5.6bn).1 To date the government has contracted for £2.7bn worth of services.2 The core objectives of the programme are to assist the NHS in reducing waiting times, support the shift from primary to secondary care, expand the options for patient choice in the provision of services, promote innovation, and build relationships between the NHS and the private sector.3
The policy has been extraordinarily difficult to evaluate because few data are publicly available.4 Parliamentary and academic assessments of the value for money and effectiveness of the policy have been hindered by the refusal of the Department of Health to make the contracts public on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.1 Because crucial data have not been submitted by the private sector to Hospital Episode Statistics, quality and performance also remain unevaluated.5 6 In July 2006 the House of Commons Health Committee concluded that lack of data made an assessment of the programme impossible, and in July 2007 the Healthcare Commission could not report on quality of care because ISTCs failed to return and comply with Hospital Episode Statistics data requirements, a situation that continues.1 …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Should UK membership exams be held overseas? Yes
Published 9 February 2012
Why not use ultrasound for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer for both the exclusion criteria for recruitment and for diagnosis as outcome variable
Published 9 February 2012
Re: Can the severity of menopausal symptoms be predicted?
Published 9 February 2012
Re: Does the BMJ have a particular ideology to pursue in assisted dying?
Published 9 February 2012
Re: Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published 9 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Wakefield sues BMJ over MMR articles (5 responses)
Published 10 Jan 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012