New Statutory body as an alternative to the NHS for mental health and hidden disability

It would be lovely but, like Iain, I don't think it's possible. First off, no organisation is perfectly managed and the larger the organisation, the more mismangement. Second, any organisation dedicated to hidden disabilities as well as mental health, will have to cover physical ailments. does a physical ailment have to be hidden all the time or include those with variable symptoms that can flare up, such as fibromyalgia, ME and lupus?  Whatever the cut-off point, there would have to be close co-operation between this organisation and the NHS, which increases the number of staff required by both organisations to manage situations when patients require both e.g. hospital stays, GP services etc. That increases the chances of jitter between the services, where patients experiences lack of co-ordination.

The other big stumbling block, as Iaian has said, is funding and staffing. The new organisation would have to be funded in the teeth of adverse publicity against ND at the moment. If the NHS can't be properly funded, how likely is it that a new organisation could be? And if it isn't (which, in my 40 years working for the civil service and experiencing mergers, new departments etc), confidence fails in both organisations, both among staff and the the public. Worse, a whole load of staff would have to be diverted from their normal jobs to handle the change, which will impact both services, plus staff for the new organisation will have to removed from the NHS, which would leave the continuing NHS without expertise in anything dealt with by the new organisation, which creates even more chances for those who need both to experience poor performance by both.

I can give you examples. While I worked for HMRC, in the years shortly after the merger between Inland Revenue and HM Customs, I was part of the unit that had to sort out the duplication of offices and other buildings across the whole estate. We were all recruited from the existing departments, which meant there were fewer customs officers and tax inspectors for a while. In addition, there had to be all sorts of training set up to integrate the staff into the new organisation, and graduate recruits dfound their courses more complex due to having to master the skills of both of the old departments. This all took 3-4 years, which had an impact on performance. This is normal for mergers, even in the pribvate sector.

In the middle of this process, the government decided to set up a new Border Force, which needed to be staffed mainly by existing ex-Customs officers, who had to be recruited and trained for the new work. From the outset, the government (as usual) underfunded the new organisation, which was plagued by bad publicity for the failures it had no control over.

It would be lovely but, like Iain, I don't think it's possible. First off, no organisation is perfectly managed and the larger the organisation, the more mismangement. Second, any organisation dedicated to hidden disabilities as well as mental health, will have to cover physical ailments. does a physical ailment have to be hidden all the time or include those with variable symptoms that can flare up, such as fibromyalgia, ME and lupus?  Whatever the cut-off point, there would have to be close co-operation between this organisation and the NHS, which increases the number of staff required by both organisations to manage situations when patients require both e.g. hospital stays, GP services etc. That increases the chances of jitter between the services, where patients experiences lack of co-ordination.

The other big stumbling block, as Iaian has said, is funding and staffing. The new organisation would have to be funded in the teeth of adverse publicity against ND at the moment. If the NHS can't be properly funded, how likely is it that a new organisation could be? And if it isn't (which, in my 40 years working for the civil service and experiencing mergers, new departments etc), confidence fails in both organisations, both among staff and the the public. Worse, a whole load of staff would have to be diverted from their normal jobs to handle the change, which will impact both services, plus staff for the new organisation will have to removed from the NHS, which would leave the continuing NHS without expertise in anything dealt with by the new organisation, which creates even more chances for those who need both to experience poor performance by both.

I can give you examples. While I worked for HMRC, in the years shortly after the merger between Inland Revenue and HM Customs, I was part of the unit that had to sort out the duplication of offices and other buildings across the whole estate. We were all recruited from the existing departments, which meant there were fewer customs officers and tax inspectors for a while. In addition, there had to be all sorts of training set up to integrate the staff into the new organisation, and graduate recruits dfound their courses more complex due to having to master the skills of both of the old departments. This all took 3-4 years, which had an impact on performance. This is normal for mergers, even in the pribvate sector.

In the middle of this process, the government decided to set up a new Border Force, which needed to be staffed mainly by existing ex-Customs officers, who had to be recruited and trained for the new work. From the outset, the government (as usual) underfunded the new organisation, which was plagued by bad publicity for the failures it had no control over.