Protests against US corporation Centene’s takeover of GP surgeries in Islington

A COALITION of anti-privatisation campaigners have urged the new health secretary to scrap plans to allow private firms to sit on NHS decision-making boards.

The We Own It group, which is running a campaign against the US corporation Centene’s takeover of GP surgeries in Islington, has sent a letter to Sajid Javid about “completely unacceptable” Integrated Care Systems (ICS).

Under new legislation firms like Centene, which now runs Mitchison Road Surgery and Hanley Primary Practice through its UK arm Operose Health, will be able to have a say in how NHS funding is spent.

The campaigners say this is an American model of healthcare that has no place in the UK’s health service.

The letter, which has been signed by several trade unions and health campaign groups including Keep Our NHS Public, said: “Decisions about how NHS money is spent should be made by the NHS with input from the local community.

“It is completely unacceptable for private providers of healthcare to sit on ICS boards.”

Campaigners took part in further protests against NHS privatisation across the country on Saturday.

They mocked up tug-of-war protests to represent the struggle between patients and “privateers”, wearing Richard Branson and Sajid Javid face masks.

An Islington patient is taking the North Central London Clinical Commissioning Group to the High Court over a decision to approve the Centene takeover that was revealed by the Tribune in February.

The takeover, which happened without any public debate or patients being informed, is at the centre of a national anti-privatisation campaign being fought on several fronts.

Part of the legal challenge is about whether patients should have been told about the change in ownership, from AT medics to Operose Health.

This week, the Department of Health has responded to a list of detailed questions from Islington and Camden campaigners about its position.

It said: “Patient involvement is not required for changes in partnerships, or changes such as those with AT Medics Ltd, unless this is likely to significantly affect service provision.

“No concerns were raised during the due diligence process, undertaken independently… In this case, there was no legal or contractual basis for the  transfer to be rejected, as it is not expected to lead to any significant change in service provision or in the care provided to patients. In this case, no consultation involving local authorities and patient representatives was undertaken as this is only required when there is a significant change in service provision.”

On the Integrated Care Boards, the statement said: “The work of ICSs are driven by health outcomes, not profit.”