Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Since your piece went to press we have learned that the court has granted permission for the judicial review to proceed to a full hearing "as soon as possible" after 14 March 2018.
Jeremy Hunt and NHS England have already conceded that proper public consultation is needed and Mr Justice Walker has now decided that arguments on the need for primary legislation and on transparency “merit a full hearing”. This is good news for everyone who believes that such important changes to the NHS should involve full public discussion and Parliamentary scrutiny.
We now expect the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Jeremy Hunt, not to lay the regulations to facilitate ACOs that he was planning to do in February. He repeatedly refused last week to delay the regulations when questioned by Sarah Wollaston MP, chair of the Health Select Committee.
Disappointingly, the judge also decided not to cap the costs that the claimants might have to pay the government and NHS England if the judicial review is lost. In view of the large amounts already spent and claimed by the government and NHS England in opposing the case every inch of the way, we are giving careful consideration to next steps on this at the moment.
Competing interests:
I am one of the five claimants in this Judicial Review
Re: NHS England faces legal challenges over proposed changes to services
Since your piece went to press we have learned that the court has granted permission for the judicial review to proceed to a full hearing "as soon as possible" after 14 March 2018.
Jeremy Hunt and NHS England have already conceded that proper public consultation is needed and Mr Justice Walker has now decided that arguments on the need for primary legislation and on transparency “merit a full hearing”. This is good news for everyone who believes that such important changes to the NHS should involve full public discussion and Parliamentary scrutiny.
We now expect the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Jeremy Hunt, not to lay the regulations to facilitate ACOs that he was planning to do in February. He repeatedly refused last week to delay the regulations when questioned by Sarah Wollaston MP, chair of the Health Select Committee.
Disappointingly, the judge also decided not to cap the costs that the claimants might have to pay the government and NHS England if the judicial review is lost. In view of the large amounts already spent and claimed by the government and NHS England in opposing the case every inch of the way, we are giving careful consideration to next steps on this at the moment.
Competing interests: I am one of the five claimants in this Judicial Review