In response to Richard Vize's response to my posting:

Richard does not seem to have addressed my main point which is the lack of balance in the article, and the subsequent presentation of a rather one sidely positive overview. Given the resources going into this pilot at a time of severe financial restriction, this lack of balance is not something to be shrugged off, in my opinion.

Richard says my last paragraph is untrue. Which bit? It does say on his website that he "wrote a marketing publication for a major consultancy" - see the section "Personal profile/ 2011 to present as Public Policy Media Limited". McKinseys are such an organisation, and since they have been running the ICP(a fact which is glaringly absent from his article), I simply expressed the hope that Richard had not omitted to mention any connection he has with them, as that would clearly constitute a potential conflict of interest. I would be very reassured to hear that there has in fact not been any connection, although given both Richard's and McKinsey's high level involvement at senior health policy level over recent years, it is hard to believe that there has not been at least a degree of informal contact.

This notwithstanding, I made no untrue statement in the last paragraph, and I do not feel it is fair of Richard to say that I did.

There are a number of other problems with the ICP that I did not go into, which I would be very happy to discuss with Richard, or anyone else that is interested, since I am certain we are both motivated by the same desire to see good and innovative health care provision utilising resources maximally and equitably.

Competing interests: None declared