Nigel Hawkes
The man, the films, those blondes. Free DVD collection starting this Sunday
NHS hospitals are to be allowed to advertise their services and even seek sponsorship deals under a code designed to improve care by increasing competition.
Under the plan, published by the Department of Health yesterday, hospitals will be able to promote their services and successes — such as low MRSA rates — though only within strict rules of practice designed to protect the NHS brand.
They will also be free to enter into sponsorship deals with the private sector, so long as the companies are not involved in matters damaging to health or linked with gambling, alcohol, tobacco, weight control or politics.
From April 1, under the Patient Choice initiative, anybody who needs a non-emergency operation in England can choose any NHSapproved hospital in which to have it. Until now, choice has been limited to local hospitals, foundation trusts and independent sector treatment centres.
Hospitals hoping to attract patients will be allowed to pursue sponsorship deals that might cover, for example, a keep-fit club jointly backed by an NHS hospital and a local business, so long as that business was not itself in the fitness industry.
The code rules out companies being able to gain “commercial advantage” from the sponsorship deal. For example, Durex, the condom maker, would not be able to sponsor a sexual health campaign jointly with a hospital. Similarly, it is unlikely that the sports clothing giant Nike would be able to sponsor a hospital’s health and fitness programme, but it could be associated with an area such as maternity or brain surgery.
Bob Ricketts, director of system management and new enterprise at the Department of Health, said: “The NHS brand is very powerful and we are not going to let any commercial activity damage that. It’s too important to the public.”
According to the code, there will be no official cap on how much hospitals can spend on advertising their services to patients, although the figures will have to be included in annual reports.
The code says: “Providers will be expected to recognise the potential effect on the reputation of the NHS of disproportionate expenditure on promotional activity. The cost of TV or cinema promotion is very unlikely to be justifiable.”
Hospitals are likely to want to promote areas of good patient care, but will not be able to discredit the work of other hospitals using “misleading” comparisons. The code said: “Comparative claims are permitted in the interests of vigorous competition and public information. They should neither mislead nor be likely to mislead.”
Hospitals will also be able to send direct marketing to their patients, but no marketing “should cause fear or distress without good reason”, according to the code. GPs have shown little enthusiasm for Patient Choice, regarding it as a complication in their relationship with local hospitals. A recent survey of patients showed that only 44 per cent remembered being offered a choice by their GP. The Government plans to spend £500,000 on newspaper advertisements and £90,000 on radio spots to get the message across.
Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director of the NHS, said: “Not all GPs are aware of the impact of choice, and I’m not sure that GPs realise they will still play a central role.”
The British Medical Association gave warning that Patient Choice may destabilise existing services. Jonathan Fielden, chairman of the BMA consultants’ committee, said: “Whilst it is likely that most patients will choose their local hospital, because it is easier to get to, there is a risk that by opting for another provider some other local services would be cut back because of the loss of funding. I am also worried that it will be difficult for patients to make informed choices. We still have a long way to go in collecting accurate, reliable and meaningful data.”
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles

A treasure trove of baubles, booty and stylish quests

50% off top restaurants, book online

2007
£47,700
2007
£41,899
2008
£41,445
Great car insurance deals online
£25,510 – 32,000
Transport for London
London
£50k
NHS
Nationwide
£
£90,000 + PRP
Essex County Council
Essex
100K
Confidential
London
5% below developer pre-launch price!
Luxury Appts, beautiful gardens w/ Thames views
Great Investment, River Views
By Funway – Thailand
from £589pp
Christmas Cruises
From only £995pp
APTs East Coast now from only
£2425pp.
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - find property for sale and rent in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Bob Ricketts comment on the NHS "brand" saddens me. The amount of recent change to the NHS has been necessary but it has damaged the brand; just note the recent outcries and response to hospital acquired infections. Brand awareness may be high but the public has not recognised the (potential) value that has been created for them from this change.
I may be wrong but I view this as private sector money providing low cost benefits to a cash poor government - a short term gain to the NHS. OK, it may be claimed that the public benefits but it probably doesn't care and the point about strategic marketing is that companies want to differentiate their brands from their competitors.
They can use the information and insight they gain to move on and upwards in service provision to the public in the future leaving the NHS impoverished by the competition. Can Mr Ricketts describe the long term strategic risks of his policy?
Another step towards future privatisation by the back door?
Alan, Manchester,
I'd like to know when the people in this country will actually look at the outcomes of the measures taken to try to force competition on our hospitals and public services. Have they truly improved them? I have contact with a lot of US-based residents in a virtual world, and my impression is that despite massive choice in the hospitals and medical facilities in their country, the actual choices allowed them under the terms of their insurance policies are a good deal more restricted than ours. I think think it is a big mistake to allow advertising or sponsorship and will not actually have the effect of improving services at all.
Fee Berry, Uxbridge, England
Won't let a company gain a commercial advantage through sponsorship, maybe they have missed year 1 in marketing, sponsorship is all about commercial advantage and why bothering sponsoring something, if there is no commercial gain?. The NHS plan is doomed to fail, like so many of their other, ill-conceived, poorly executed plans, ridiculous.
Tony, London,
The doctors and nurses of the NHS are still good despite the occasional bad apple.
The problem lies in grossly over-inflated incompetent management. This has always been a problem with Government management (Civil Sevice, etc.) . In the case of the NHS, the problem lies with the administrators at all levels not knowing how to manage "PEOPLE". They can add and subtract, do balance sheets, write proposals, etc (the MBA stuff) but the key to good management is the management of the PRODUCTIVE people in the system. This they cannot do; there is massive dissatisfaction within the producing section of the NHS about management.
Solution: Get management right; management that has the backing of the productive, health people in the NHS and remove all incompetents!
M. Cawdery, Portadown, UK ( if it still exists)
I am not interested one hoot in patient choice or targets, as an ex soldier I have instilled in me that old fashioned belief, of trust in those on the front line. Of course nothing is always going to work to perfection, humans have their failings. However, I do understand that meddling by unqualified people causes resenment, and demorlisation. Administrators were once used to assist and supply, now they have elevated themselves both in rates of pay and the power to overrule, decisions made by professionals. Until this is rectified the same old round of failure will be the norm. The military always work on this principle, identify the aim (problem) and with the resources available plan to achieve the aim. Once you involve many agencies a reversal of this principle happens - you end up aiming to achieve a plan !
William, Southampton, UK
As a former nurse it is not so much surprise this is actually happening, because I knew it would one day. What does stun me somewhat is that it is happening under whilst a Labour Gov't is in power !!!!
Ian Payne, WALSALL,
Gimmicks will not fix a broken NHS. All of these smoke and mirror games are designed to divert public attention from the dire need for a root and branch reform of the NHS. Obviously, Government has neither the heart nor the ability to bring about meaningful change. The next thing we know they will be handing out lollies to "good" patients who simply stay away and suffer.
Bob Evans, Anaheim, California