Embrace private healthcare to fix the NHS, says former Boots boss
The former boss of Boots has urged the Government to embrace private medical care to fix the NHS, as he backed plans to inject tens of billions of pounds into the struggling health service.
Sebastian James, the former Bullingdon Club member who endorsed Labour last year, said Rachel Reeves is right to propose a £30bn funding boost for the NHS as part of her upcoming spending review.
However, he urged ministers to use the cash to 'grasp the nettle of private provision', as he said that easing pressure on cash-strapped NHS hospitals was key to reducing waiting lists.
Mr James is already working with the NHS to help outsource cataract surgeries as the chief executive of European eye clinic chain Veonet, which runs the SpaMedica business in the UK.
But he said Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, must go further and faster on working with the private sector after waiting lists recently rose for the first time in seven months.
The backlog now stands at 7.42m, according to data released for the end of March.
'We need radical change that can be achieved by releasing a measurable sum of money,' Mr James, the son of the hereditary peer the 5th Baron Northbourne, told The Telegraph.
'We need a more commercial approach. We have to grasp the nettle of private provision. We understand people's hesitation, but we want to see what's best for the patient.'
The suggestion echoes ideas put forward by Richard Tice, Reform UK's deputy leader.
He has called for the NHS to buy millions more appointments from the independent sector to help address waiting lists, claiming it could help to clear the appointment backlog within two years.
This would go further than the Government's current pledge to offer up to a million extra appointments in private hospitals.
Yet such ideas are controversial as they will stoke fears of creeping privatisation of the NHS and raise concerns about potential profiteering.
Mr James said: 'There are questions about private companies making money. But it's all about how do you square that?
'There are two key things. One, it will still be free at the point of use. And two, the price will be cheaper than what is offered by the public healthcare system.'
Mr James has already held talks with Whitehall officials about his plans for the NHS and he said the Chancellor is right to unleash a significant one-off sum.
'You should borrow to pay for it,' said Mr James, suggesting that £20bn or £30bn would barely move the dial when it comes to the country's £2.8 trillion debt pile.
However, it comes at a time when the Chancellor is already facing a struggle to balance the books.
Ms Reeves will this week deliver her spending review, which is widely expected to unlock an extra £30bn for the NHS over a three-year period.
That will be at the expense of other public services, as she is also plotting real-terms cuts to day-to-day spending across many Whitehall departments.
Such pressures have emerged because of the Chancellor's fiscal rules, which prevent her from borrowing to fund day-day-day spending.
However, Mr James believes that borrowing to fix the waiting list crisis would do far greater good than harm.
He said that SpaMedica's role in providing eye services for the NHS should be a blueprint for ministers to work from, as the company claims to have helped cut waiting times for cataract surgery from 18 months to two weeks since Covid.
It now provides around 70pc of eye care referrals from the NHS, and last year helped to restore the sight of around 200,000 patients.
While it has helped to cut waiting times, SpaMedica is one of many private cataract clinics facing claims of profiteering after they allegedly inflated costs for procedures.
A leaked document from the Health Department, first reported by The Sunday Times, alleged that SpaMedica classed its patients as 'higher complexity', which led to procedures being more expensive than they needed to be.
Campaigners point to the fact that SpaMedica's profits rose from £63.9m to £71.8m in its last financial year, which they say is proof of the company taking the taxpayer for a ride.
SpaMedica has denied any wrongdoing.
However, such allegations reflect the fierce debate surrounding privatisation of the NHS, with many households uncomfortable with the prospect of independent providers making a profit while providing medical services, even if they are free for patients.
Mr James, who ran Boots from 2018 to 2024, is adamant that ministers must ignore such complaints if they are to have any hope of reducing waiting lists.
'We have cut waiting times down from 18 months to two to three weeks,' said Mr James. 'We have eaten away our waiting list.'
This is particularly key for Sir Keir Starmer, who has pledged that 92pc of NHS patients will get an appointment within 18 weeks by the end of the current parliament in 2029.
Ultimately, Mr James argues that private healthcare must be embraced because it is far more efficient than the NHS.
He said that SpaMedica clinics carry out more than 20 cataract surgeries a day, which is almost double that of NHS hospitals.
The fees are also cheaper, he said, as each cataract operation costs SpaMedica £980, compared to around £1,400 on the NHS.
'We've shown that we can do it in our industry, but we need to broaden it out,' he said. 'We could take it area by area, whether that be knee replacements or treating melanomas.
'By working with private healthcare providers, the solution is to save the NHS money.
'We understand people's hesitation, but we want to see what's best for the patient. We're not talking about eradicating the NHS, it's about a partnership.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
UK Valproate Restrictions in Men Justified? New Data
A large Danish cohort study showed no significant increase in neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) among children fathered by men taking valproate during spermatogenesis, challenging earlier safety concerns and current UK restrictions on valproate use in men. As previously reported by Medscape Medical News , the decision to restrict the drug in women and in men younger than 55 years was made in January 2024, after the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency issued new guidance on the drug's use. 'Paternal exposure to antiseizure medication in association with conception is unlikely to pose any major risk for the offspring,' the investigators led by Jakob Christensen, DrMedSci, consultant neurologist at Aarhus University Hospital and professor at Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, noted. The study was published online on May 22 in JAMA Network Open . Unnecessary Precaution? In the US and Europe, there is strong guidance about avoiding valproate in pregnant women and women of childbearing age due to an elevated risk for birth defects and other developmental problems. In January 2024, the European Medicines Agency's (EMA's) safety committee (Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee [PRAC]) expanded precautionary measures on valproate use to men considering fatherhood. The advisory was fueled largely by an observational study by the contract research organization IQVIA. The study showed that about 5 out of 100 children had an NDD when born to fathers taking valproate during the 3 months before conception compared with about 3 out of 100 when born to fathers treated with lamotrigine or levetiracetam. Last summer, Christensen and colleagues were unable to replicate the IQVIA results in a study using a subset of the same IQVIA data. However, at the time, only limited information about the IQVIA study was publicly available. Once additional information from the IQVIA study became available, the researchers tried again to replicate the findings, aligning their methods more closely with the IQVIA study. Despite using the same methodology and incorporating additional data, they were still unable to replicate the IQVIA findings. Their conclusion remained unchanged — there was no statistically significant increased risk for NDDs. Specifically, among 961 children exposed to paternal valproate monotherapy and 1401 exposed to lamotrigine or levetiracetam, there was no significant increase in risk for NDDs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.67-1.54). 'This finding remained robust across analyses of specific NDDs, analyses of valproate dose, analyses accounting for time trends, analyses allowing for polytherapy, analyses expanding the definition of NDDs, analyses restricted to fathers with epilepsy, and analyses with a restricted exposure window,' Christensen and colleagues reported. Restricting analyses to fathers with epilepsy of unknown cause yielded a higher risk (aHR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.13-5.44), but this association was no longer significant in analyses matched on birth year (aHR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.00-5.44). Additional sensitivity analyses (restricting exposure window, excluding children with epilepsy or maternal epilepsy, and accounting for polytherapy) consistently showed no elevated risk for NDDs associated with paternal valproate exposure. 'We've examined this issue from many angles and still find no evidence supporting the concern behind EMA's recommendations,' Christensen said in a news release. Will the EMA Reconsider? Reached for comment, Aatif Husain, MD, epileptologist, neurologist, and sleep medicine specialist at DukeHealth, Durham, North Carolina, said, 'There seems to be a fair amount of literature' suggesting no increased risk for NDDs in children whose fathers use valproate. 'A recent systematic review that included 10 other studies came to this same conclusion,' said Husain, who wasn't involved in the Danish study. Taken together, the data 'would probably move EMA to relook at their guidance to see if it needs to be modified,' he said. Medscape Medical News reached out to the EMA press office for comment and received the following response. 'As with every medicine authorized in the EU, EMA continues monitoring and supervising the safety of these medicines. This includes monitoring information from various sources, such as spontaneous reports, clinical studies, scientific literature, and management of safety signals, which consists of a set of activities to determine whether there are new risks associated with an active substance or a medicine or whether known risks have changed. Should there be any updates, EMA will communicate them via the PRAC Highlights.' Husain told Medscape Medical News that neither the FDA nor the American Epilepsy Society has issued guidance on valproate use in men 'because the data has not been strong enough.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The cost of caring for a loved one
It's Carers' Week, when we're encouraged to recognise the effort put in by unpaid carers looking after their loved ones. As more people live longer and need more care, it should also be a chance to consider what we'd do if we found ourselves in this position, and someone we love needed care. You might want to step in and help, so it's worth understanding the potential costs — from the extras you'd need at home to the cost of any lost income. In many cases, the whole family will need to have a frank conversation about how to support the person offering care, as well as the person needing it. If your family member needs professional care, the question of costs becomes even more pressing. On average, you'll pay about £50,000 a year for residential care and £66,000 for a nursing home, but the averages hide some big costs, and plenty of people pay well over £100,000 a year. You may be able to get some help from the state, but there's a process you need to go through first. It starts with a "needs assessment", done by your local authority, who will work out what care the person needs. Read more: How much does it cost to become a driver in the UK? Next you go through a financial assessment, which looks at the assets of the person needing care. If they're getting care at home, or they're in a care home temporarily, this assessment won't include the value of their own home. If they're going into a care home permanently, it may include their home, unless someone from specific groups also lives there. This includes a partner, any of their children under the age of 18, or a relative who is disabled or over the age of 60. In England, if they have assets of less than £14,250, the council may pay for care — although it will also take their income into account. If they have between £14,250 and £23,250, they will have to contribute to the cost of care, but if they have assets over £23,250, they'll need to foot the entire bill. If your loved one has complex medical needs, they should be assessed for NHS Continuing Healthcare. This can pay for all their care in some cases, but don't assume they'll qualify. It's not enough to have caring needs around the clock, they'll have to have very high medical needs too, requiring regular intervention from medical experts and professionals. If you end up needing to pay for care for someone, there are a few benefits that will help. If they are over state pension age, they could get the attendance allowance — or pension age disability in Scotland. However, this will barely scratch the surface of costs. It means you may need to speak to anyone in your life who might need care, to see what preparations they've put in place. A piece of research we did a while ago found that fewer than half of people thought their loved ones could pay for care from their savings. It means you should consider their pension too. A guaranteed monthly pension income will go towards the cost of care. If they're using pension drawdown, they may have money in their pension pot that can be used too. For younger people, this often makes sense as a way to save for your own care needs, especially if you're saving into a workplace pension and your employer is helping to build the pot. Read more: What is the Pension Investment Review? However, the value of the property will often need to be used. Some people will rent the family home out to cover fees, although this is risky because rental income isn't guaranteed, and will be depleted by maintenance and repairs. You can consider equity release to free up some of the value in the property, but this is expensive. There will be a set up cost, and usually any interest on the loan will roll up, and needs to repaid when the property is sold. There's also the option of a deferred payment arrangement with the local council, which is a bit like equity release, but run by the council and slightly less expensive. But for many people, the most sensible option ends up being selling up. You might pay fees from the lump sum as you go along, but it's worth considering an immediate needs care annuity instead. These pay a fixed amount to the care home every month for the rest of their life, and tend to cover the gap between pension income and the cost of care. Talking to your loved ones about care, and how they'd pay for it, is difficult, but it's a far easier conversation well in advance, when they have time to make a plan. It's much more stressful to try to discuss this at the point they already need care and are starting to panic about how they're going to pay for more: How to tell if you're rich Should people keep working until later in life? How to get your children to move outSign in to access your portfolio


Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Low-Dose Colchicine May Help Stabilize Coronary Plaques
The LoDoCo2 trial found a reduced cardiovascular risk with low-dose colchicine in patients with chronic coronary disease. In this substudy, attenuation of pericoronary adipose tissue did not differ between patients receiving low-dose colchicine and those receiving placebo; however, people taking colchicine had a higher volume of dense calcified plaque, indicating improved plaque stability. METHODOLOGY: Elevated attenuation of pericoronary adipose tissue and a high burden of noncalcified plaque have been linked to adverse coronary outcomes caused by plaque rupture and instability; statins mitigate these risks by promoting plaque calcification. This cross-sectional substudy of the LoDoCo2 trial investigated if treatment with low-dose colchicine would attenuate coronary inflammation, as evidenced by less attenuation of pericoronary adipose tissue in 151 patients with chronic coronary disease (mean age, 64.4 years; 14% women). Patients were randomly assigned to receive either low-dose colchicine (0.5 mg once daily; n = 79) or placebo (n = 72). All patients had previously undergone coronary stenting at enrollment and were on antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy; high-intensity statin therapy consisted of 40 mg and 80 mg doses of atorvastatin. After a median treatment duration of 28 months, coronary CT angiography (CCTA) was performed to evaluate the attenuation of pericoronary adipose tissue in the proximal segments of epicardial coronary arteries and to assess plaque characteristics. TAKEAWAY: Median attenuation did not differ significantly between the patients receiving colchicine and those receiving placebo. Compared with patients receiving placebo, those receiving colchicine showed a higher calcified plaque burden (adjusted difference, 2.4%), higher calcified plaque volume (adjusted difference, 59 mm 3 ), and higher volume of dense calcified plaque (adjusted difference, 61.5 mm 3 ; P < .05 for all). ), and higher volume of dense calcified plaque (adjusted difference, 61.5 mm ; < .05 for all). In patients on low-intensity statin therapy, colchicine treatment was associated with a lower burden of low-attenuation plaque, an effect not observed in those receiving high-intensity statins ( P for interaction = .037). IN PRACTICE: Low-dose colchicine was associated with an overall higher volume of calcified plaque, particularly dense calcified plaque, as well as a lower burden of low-attenuation plaque in participants treated with colchicine and low-intensity statins,' the researchers wrote. 'Although the cross-sectional design of the study limits causal inference, these are features of plaque stability and may partly explain the reduction in risk of cardiovascular events associated with colchicine in patients with chronic coronary disease.' SOURCE: This study was led by Aernoud T L Fiolet, MD, PhD, of University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. It was published online on May 19, 2025, in Heart . LIMITATIONS: The researchers conducted this cross-sectional analysis at the end of treatment, without any baseline or temporal studies. This study had relatively fewer women than the proportion of women with cardiovascular disease in the general population. Additional imaging modalities were not used to confirm the findings from CCTA. DISCLOSURES: This study received grants from the Australian National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Withering Stichting Nederland, the Netherlands Heart Foundation, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. One author reported receiving software royalties from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Another author reported giving presentations, and three authors reported serving as consultants for pharmaceutical and healthcare companies without receiving any personal fees.