UK PM Starmer Dismantles Health Agency in Bid for Savings and Improved Care

By Sarah Young

LONDON () – Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced on Thursday his intention to abolish an organization supervising the government-supported healthcare system in England. This move aims to conserve hundreds of millions of pounds and reduce both waiting times and bureaucratic processes.

Starmer was chosen in July with a pledge to boost economic growth and restore public services, such as the progressively more expensive National Health Service. An independent study released in September indicated that this service was in dire straits.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with an aging populace and multiple strike events, have resulted in lengthy waits for medical procedures—sometimes stretching into months or even years—which in turn burdens the economy.

According to the Office for National Statistics, there are 2.8 million individuals in Britain who are not working because of prolonged illness.

Starmer stated on Thursday that abolishing NHS England would eliminate superfluous bureaucracy and allocate additional funding to front-line hospital services.

"In good conscience, I cannot justify to the British public why they should allocate funds towards another layer of bureaucracy," Starmer stated during a speech in Hull, an urban center in northern England. He mentioned that this shift would result in additional personnel and reduced wait times.

The UK government manages the healthcare system in England via its health department — the Department of Health and Social Care. In contrast, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland oversee their respective healthcare systems independently.

In 2012, NHS England was created by a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government as an independent organization aimed at setting funding priorities, supervising healthcare services across England, and negotiating agreements.

Health Minister Wes Streeting stated on Thursday that this led to redundancy and an excessive emphasis on adherence instead of ensuring cost efficiency.

He stated that reform would be "challenging," yet it could yield savings of several hundred million pounds annually.

(Reported by Sarah Young; Edited by Andrew Heavens)