'We're not giving up or giving in just yet,' says Healthwatch York manager
Press readers will already know the government has decided to abolish Healthwatch England and the network of local Healthwatch organisations. Truth be told, here at Healthwatch York, my small team and I are all still reeling from the news. But we're not giving up or giving in just yet.
Healthwatch York started in April 2013. Our role has always been clear to us – putting people at the heart of health and social care. Because the best people to shape services are those using them or, in too many cases, struggling to.
Across England, local Healthwatch organisations have played a vital role in raising patient concerns. We shine a light on service failures. We drive improvements through honest, evidence-based reporting.
Here in York, we have supported people to navigate complex systems and access the help they need. We've published guides to mental health and wellbeing support and dementia support. We've challenged gaps in mental health support both when our mental health hospital was closed at short notice and when we heard ongoing concerns about crisis care. We've worked to improve access to GP services. We've independently evaluated the changes to the adult ADHD and autism pathway. We've taken the concerns of deaf people to the heart of the NHS, helping shape the Accessible Information Standard. We've worked with the universities in our city to make sure more York voices are heard in research.
These achievements were possible because you trusted us to speak up on your behalf. Not as part of the system but as a critical friend holding it to account.
We have a seat at the table – attending the Health and Wellbeing Board and other key strategic meetings. But we've always known this isn't our seat – it belongs to each and every one of you, and we use everything we hear every time we take up that seat. Our independence is what enables us to speak both with authority and with integrity. Your voices are what gives our independence real power. We never forget the responsibility we carry to make sure you are heard.
We've been told our roles will be absorbed into local authorities and integrated care boards. Our role in listening to people and gathering feedback will be replaced by the NHS app. We have serious concerns about those voices that will never be heard in such a system. Those who don't have smartphones, or the data to use them. Those living with health conditions that mean regular hospital stays are inevitable, and fear speaking out will impact their long-term care. Those who feel they are fighting the system already and have lost faith in its ability to change. Those who just want to tell their story, in their own words and their own time. We know this matters, because people frequently let us know that in telling us it is the first time this happens for them.
Having read the NHS 10-year plan and Penny Dash's second review of patient safety, there is real concern they simply don't understand what we do. We've been described as 'ventriloquists' and 'checkers' in a system that needs more doers. We do not recognise this description of our work. We ARE doers. We're out and about week in, week out, visiting care homes, local libraries, sitting down with carers groups and disabled people's organisations, community groups and local charities. We work closely with our voluntary sector partners to amplify the voices of those least heard in health and care. And we choose our priorities based on what you tell us every day – with more than 160 people in York speaking to us in June 2025 alone.
We believe the proposed changes are a mistake. We urge local and national leaders to reflect on what will be lost if Healthwatch is stripped of its independence. An effective health and social care system must include a strong, visible, and impartial patient voice, one that listens without fear or favour, and speaks up without interference.
Despite the announcement, for us it is business as usual. We will continue at least until new legislation confirms the abolition and this is not expected until 2026. Your voices, your experiences, helping you access the help you need – these remain our priority. Email us at healthwatch@yorkcvs.org.uk or phone: 01904 621133.
If like us you think independent voice matters, and you want to raise your concerns, please contact your local MP.
We also expect to be sharing a petition alongside our Healthwatch network colleagues shortly.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oscar Health (OSCR) Loses 12.7% as Wells Fargo Downgrades Stock
Oscar Health, Inc. (NYSE:OSCR) is one of the Oscar Health declined by 12.7 percent week-on-week as investor sentiment was dampened anew by another rating downgrade for its stock. Last week, Wells Fargo lowered its stock rating and price target for Oscar Health, Inc. (NYSE:OSCR) to 'underweight' from 'equal weight' and to $10 from $16 previously, amid concerns about rising medical costs and inadequate pricing for 2025. The new price marked a 30.4-percent downside from its latest closing price of $14.38. This followed Barclays' first coverage of Oscar Health, Inc. (NYSE:OSCR) on July 2, assigning the firm with an 'underweight' rating but with a price target higher than Wells Fargo's, of $17 apiece. A close up of a patient and a healthcare professional engaging in conversation, showing the company's commitment to patient care. According to Barclays, its coverage reflected policy risks that could derail the insurer's ambitious margin and growth targets. It can be recalled that Oscar Health, Inc. (NYSE:OSCR), under new leadership, set a goal of more than $2.25 earnings per share by 2027. While we acknowledge the potential of OSCR as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: 30 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 11 Hidden AI Stocks to Buy Right Now. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Your future': Problem gambling in UK is a stark warning for Mass. public health leaders
'High Stakes: Gambling Addiction, Beyond Borders' is a three-part series by New England Public Media looking at the public health movement to address gambling in Massachusetts and the United States, and what can be learned from two countries with very different models of gambling regulation: Norway and the United Kingdom. This is part two of that series. If you walk around Blackpool, England — a one-time seaside resort on the west coast of England — you see carnival rides, a flashy boardwalk and a handful of neon-marketed casinos and arcades. Some call it the Las Vegas of Britain on the basis of betting opportunities per square mile. I thought a weekend in Blackpool might serve as a trial-by-fire to learning about gambling in Britain. And within 15 minutes, I managed to lose my entire 20-pound budget on roulette machines at the Coral Island Casino. But you don't have to come to Blackpool to bet in the United Kingdom. With an estimated 22 million people betting every month — and 2,000 gambling companies — researchers consider the U.K. one of biggest gambling markets in the world. It's also one of the places Massachusetts looked to when the state began regulating its own nascent gambling industry. 'I would describe it this way: that the wizened, haggard old man on the other side of the Atlantic is your future,' said Andrew Rhodes, the head of the U.K. Gambling Commission. 'So every difficult experience we have had is going to happen in the U.S.' While countries like Norway, for example, acted in the early 2000s to restrict gambling, the U.K. did the opposite. The National Gambling Act of 2005 liberalized and legitimized the gambling industry, which had previously been considered more of a seedy endeavor. 'Prior to then, gambling could best be described as something to be tolerated but not encouraged,' Rhodes said. Today, almost every main street in every English town has a combination of betting shops and arcades where people can gamble. Major cities have brick-and-mortar casinos. And like the rest of the world, mobile and online betting is everywhere. But with more places to gamble comes a higher risk of addiction, many health leaders say. A government report from 2023 estimated almost 2 million people in the U.K. are either problem gamblers or at risk of becoming one. In response, the U.K.'s national Gambling Commission says it is putting in a number of new guardrails to help protect the population from gambling addiction, albeit balanced against the needs of the industry and limits of the law. 'The government is still very focused on the idea that it can simultaneously grow the industry and protect people from harms,' said Heather Wardle, a professor at the University of Glasgow. 'We need a critical conversation.' Wardle has been researching gambling policy and addiction for 20 years, including as a consultant for the Gambling Commission. She's also an outspoken critic of the country's gambling policy. So when I asked her if the U.K. should be a model for U.S. regulators, including those in Massachusetts, she hedged. 'I mean, certainly the U.K. is a model,' she said. 'The question is, a model of what?' Brixton is one of the most dense betting neighborhoods in London. It's also one of the poorest. Posters at each betting shop entrance have slogans meant to promote moderation, like 'Take time to think' and 'When the fun stops, stop.' (These are often next to another sign: 'Best Odds Guaranteed.') Giving me a tour of the area, Wardle said those messages reinforce the idea that it's each person's responsibility to play in moderation — what's known as the 'responsible gaming' framework favored by the gambling industry — rather than the government's job to help protect the population from addiction. She believes that's only possible by scaling back the excessive promotion and availability of gambling. We entered one betting franchise called William Hill, where a horse race was blaring on TV screens and several men were checking their score sheets. Nearby, a row of video machines were loaded with casino-style games. Wardle slid a 10 pound note into a machine and chose an electronic roulette game. 'So if it's any number between 1 or 12, then we win,' she said, pressing the start button. It was 14. A man sitting next to us had been gambling for four hours and lost 800 pounds — around $1,100 — according to an employee who'd been watching with concern. After five minutes, a message on the screen reminded Wardle she had set a time limit for herself. To override the reminder, all she had to do was press a button. And she did, winning the next game and then losing two, along with the rest of her cash. The U.K.'s National Gambling Act of 2005 set three key goals for regulating gambling: preventing crime, ensuring fairness and protecting people from harm. Wardle said it also sent a message to the public that 'we should stop being quite so puritanical. We want the industry to grow.' And grow it did. In addition to casinos in large cities and resort towns, betting shops in smaller towns started proliferating, offering a new kind of slot machine with preloaded games. Then came online gambling and sports betting, matched by a rush of advertising and sponsorship campaigns. 'If I wanted to generate harm amongst a population, this is pretty much how I would do it,' said Matt Gaskell, an addiction specialist who runs six gambling treatment clinics for the country's National Health Service. Gambling products are designed to 'exploit reward pathways [in the brain], affect our decision making, and have an influence on the way that we think and act,' Gaskell said. 'My patients gamble in the bathroom, they gamble on their way to work, they gamble at work.' According to GamCare, a charity organization that offers counseling and referrals, 2024 saw the highest number of calls on record to the U.K.'s national gambling helpline, largely due to sports betting and online casino games. Gambling treatment has expanded in the U.K. in recent years, going from one nationally funded clinic to 15. But by the time people come into a clinic, Gaskell said, the damage has been done. While about 1,500 people seek gambling treatment a year, Gaskell believes that's only a tiny fraction of the number who have gambling disorders. Using a public health analogy, he said the system is trying to rescue people after they're already drowning. 'We're able to pick one or two out of the river,' he said, 'while the industry is throwing in thousands further upstream.' Matt Zarb-Cousin was 16 in 2010 when he placed his first bet. He was waiting for a friend near a betting shop while a soccer match was underway. 'I'm an Arsenal fan, and I just put some money in and just thought I'd pass a bit of time,' he said. 'And then I won in the first attempt, and I thought, 'Well, this is easy.'' Within a few months, he couldn't stop. Sometimes he won, which made him feel powerful. Sometimes he lost, which made him want to win the money back. 'I was sort of trapped in a prison that the gambling had sort of created around me, where I couldn't enjoy anything except gambling,' he said. He used student loans and bank overdrafts to fund his bets. In one afternoon, he lost several thousand pounds. 'And it took me to a very, very dark place.' Zarb-Cousin said he made plans to take his own life until his parents intervened. It took him a lot of therapy, and a few relapses, to stop gambling entirely. During that period, he went to a Gamblers Anonymous support group. 'And what I really didn't like about the culture around gambling addiction recovery was the focus on blaming the individual,' he said. 'That only serves the industry's interests, in my view,' he said. 'Because they're sort of saying, 'Well, OK, we're going to cause all of this harm and profit from it. But the people that get impacted by it, they're sort of embarrassed and ashamed and they're going to be quiet.'' The push for stronger regulations came as people like Zarb-Cousin, now 35, began to call on legislators to protect all players, not just the most vulnerable. He and others successfully lobbied to reduce the maximum stake on slot machines from 100 pounds a spin to 5 pounds. (They were unsuccessful in changing the speed of play, which goes as fast as two seconds a turn.) 'We never understood what a deep and complex addiction it was,' said Charles Ritchie, whose 24-year-old son Jack took his own life in 2017 after years of gambling led to anxiety, depression and overwhelming debt. Ritchie and his wife Liz founded the organization Gambling With Lives, which is made up of people who have lost a family member to gambling-related suicide. They are pushing for more limits on the industry, as well as research and education on the risks of gambling. 'All the young people who died, these were nice young people and they were … being told, 'It's your fault, it's something wrong with you,'' Ritchie said. ''Everybody else is fine. You're the problem here. You need to solve it.'' Andrew Rhodes said he takes seriously the need to protect the public from gambling harms. But, as head of the U.K. Gambling Commission, he also has to take the industry's needs into account. 'What we're trying to do is make sure that people who want to engage in gambling can, with as minimum friction as possible,' he said. 'But we make sure that operators identify those who are at risk because it isn't in the industry's best interests, after all, for people to be harmed by gambling.' Many public health advocates say that's not actually true. Research shows that about 90% of the gambling industry's profits come from about 10% of the highest-spending customers, including people with gambling disorders. Rhodes said strict regulations, like the mandatory spending limits in Norway, would not be politically or socially acceptable in the U.K. 'The more you restrict people, the more you do run a risk of driving people to the illegal market … where there are no safeguards at all,' he said, echoing a common argument from the gambling industry. Even so, Rhodes said the gambling commission has already banned many practices that encourage excessive play, including most VIP schemes, misleading messages that present a loss as a win and 'slam stops' that give the false illusion of controlling a slot machine's outcome. And Rhodes said the commission is now calling on all operators to intervene in a 'meaningful' way when customers are showing signs of trouble or losing large sums of money in a short span of time. Several betting shop managers told me they do their best to comply. An arcade manager in Blackpool named Mary, who declined to give her last name, said she looks at customers' 'body language, signs they're exhibiting to see if they're in sort of internal distress.' But Mary said most people just want to be left alone. 'Real gamblers, they'd walk through snow, wouldn't they? Because it's an addiction, isn't it?' And while she hands out brochures with the national gambling helpline number, she said most people leave them behind. Another recent change is a new levy on gambling operators in the U.K. Enacted in April, the 1% tax on profits is expected to raise about 100 million pounds ($140 million) a year towards prevention, research and treatment. 'Money will now go untainted by the gambling companies who cannot dictate how their money is spent,' said Don Foster, a member of Parliament who heads a legislative group called Peers for Gambling Reform. In one of the commission's more controversial measures, operators are now asked to conduct 'affordability checks' to determine whether players can afford to lose as much as they are betting. Some critics say that's an invasion of customer privacy and hard to enforce. 'There's lots of debates around this, how it should be done, what the limit should be,' Foster said. 'But the principle … has been established and that's a major victory.' Foster would still like to see a cap on what he considers excessive advertising for sports betting and online casino games, but Rhodes said that's not in the Gambling Commission's jurisdiction. The most encouraging sign, Foster said, is a shift in the national conversation, as more politicians treat gambling as a public health issue. But he's still concerned the new Labour Party government is under pressure to grow the economy, and by extension, the gambling industry. 'The notion that you can increase the profits of the gambling companies without it having an impact on gambling harm is clearly, in most people's view, nonsensical,' Foster said. Britain has been developing regulations over the course of 20 years, as the gambling industry has rolled out online games, smartphone apps and sports betting. In contrast, Rhodes pointed out, 'all of those things are arriving at the same time in the U.S.' And with no nationwide gambling policy, each state is on its own to regulate the options. 'It will be a very long journey for the states to get to grips with this, unless they are able to get real political clout over this very, very quickly,' said Matt Gaskell, the gambling addiction clinician for the National Health Service. 'It's always harder to draw things back once they've gotten way out of control.' U.S. gambling experts are watching the U.K.'s moves closely, including Jonathan Cohen, who wrote the new book 'Losing Big: America's Losing Bet on Sports Gambling.' 'What's happening in England is a great test case for us,' he said. Cohen said there's still time for most states to outlaw online casino games — a style of gambling that experts consider especially addictive. So far, only seven states allow them and Massachusetts isn't one of them. Affordability checks, as the U.K. is piloting, have also caught the eyes of U.S. public health leaders. 'It may or may not be doing what they set out to do, but I think the concept struck us as a very solid one,' said Mark Gottlieb, the executive director of the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University in Boston. Gottlieb helped write the Safe Bet Act, a pending federal bill that would make gambling operators do a financial check on any customer betting more than $1,000 in a 24-hour period, or $10,000 in a 30-day period. A pending Massachusetts gambling bill makes a similar proposal. And while the Safe Bet Act stops short of creating a national gambling commission, as the U.K. has, it would create minimum federal standards for advertising, affordability and artificial intelligence — an approach the industry strongly resists. Public health advocates in both countries acknowledge that adding new restrictions on betting could lead to a smaller gambling industry. But researcher Heather Wardle said that may be a worthwhile tradeoff. 'Do you want a smaller industry that produces less harms that arguably could be more sustainable going forward?' she asked. Next up in the series: As sports betting expands across the United States, states are on their own to make the rules. A growing movement of U.S. health leaders and legislators want to strengthen and standardize the way gambling is regulated. But they are facing opposition from the betting industry. This project was supported by a grant from the Association of Health Care Journalists, with funding from The Commonwealth Fund. It was edited by Dusty Christensen, with help from Elizabeth Román. Injured Red Sox starter strikes out 8 in first rehab outing Red Sox rain delay: Sudden monsoon in DC causes stoppage in 2nd inning Sunday MLB insider tabs 'Rafael Devers duplicate' as perfect fit for Red Sox in free agency Funeral info announced for woman killed in Wrentham single-car crash MLB insider connects ex-Red Sox outfielder to NL West contender Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Top Payer IT Consulting Priorities for 2025-2026: Health Plans Intensify Focus on AI, Value-Based Care, Compliance, and Digital Transformation
Black Book Survey of 1,200+ Executives Names Top-Rated Advisory Firms for Strategic, ROI-Driven Transformation WASHINGTON, D.C., 3683 / / July 13, 2025 / A new survey of 1,202 executives from national, regional, and specialty health plans reveals surging demand for expert consulting services as payers face unprecedented digital, financial, and regulatory transformation. The Q2 2025 Black Book Research study ranks the top-performing advisory firms in each priority area, based on client satisfaction, outcomes, ROI, and 18 proprietary key performance indicators. Strategic Priorities: Survey Highlights For 2025-2026, health plans cite value-based reimbursement, artificial intelligence, digital integration, compliance, and consumer engagement as their top areas for advisory firm engagement. Ninety-two percent of executives expressed a preference for independent, vendor-neutral consultants to ensure actionable, unbiased guidance. Top-Ranked Payer IT Advisory Firms Value-Based Care & Reimbursement OptimizationRanked by performance in provider alignment, financial impact, and contract innovation CareAllies: (#1 for eight consecutive years): Highest scores for payer-provider collaboration, MA contract model transformation, and value-based enablement. Lumeris: Top-rated for accountable care strategy, operationalizing value-based initiatives, and STAR ratings improvement. Milliman: Leader in financial modeling, risk adjustment methodology, and payment analytics for VBC. ___________ AI & Advanced Analytics ConsultingRanked by outcomes in automation, forecasting, and operational ROI SAS Institute - Health & Life Sciences: Highest for actuarial forecasting, claims automation, and predictive fraud detection tools. Optum Advisory Services: Client satisfaction leader for second year in AI-powered modeling, analytics deployment, and clinical data use. Fractal Analytics: Recognized for intelligent automation, AI maturity frameworks, and operationalization of analytics. __________ Digital Health Strategy & Ecosystem IntegrationRated for digital platform enablement, virtual care, and infrastructure modernization Chartis Group: #1 for virtual care strategy, digital health transformation, and infrastructure integration. PwC Health Industries Advisory: Rated for comprehensive digital planning, interoperability, and patient/member engagement strategies. Huron Consulting Group: Top client marks for readiness assessments, digital ops alignment, and IT modernization support. __________ Regulatory Compliance & CMS Audit ReadinessEvaluated on compliance outcomes, risk mitigation, and audit performance Deloitte: Highest client scores in regulatory tech implementation and CMS audit response readiness. Inovalon Consulting & Analytics: Leader in audit risk reduction through analytics and compliance advisory. Guidehouse: Top marks for proven success in RADV audits, risk adjustment, and regulatory readiness. __________ Pricing Transparency & Consumer EngagementAssessed by transparency tool effectiveness, consumer experience, and enrollment optimization Softheon: #1 in ACA enrollment, member-facing quoting platforms, and transparency integration. ZS Associates: Strong client outcomes in benefit pricing, segmentation, and digital experience design. EY-Parthenon: Trusted for journey mapping, behavioral economics, and consumer digital strategy. _________ Key Trends Driving 2026 Advisory Demand Survey respondents identified four primary trends fueling the need for external consulting partners: Generative AI in claims and prior authorization. Predictive analytics for cost, quality, and patient/member engagement. ROI-based digital health evaluations to ensure investments deliver measurable returns. CMS compliance and audit preparedness as oversight expands. "Health plans are navigating the most complex transformation period in recent memory," said Doug Brown, President of Black Book Research. "Executives are choosing external advisory partners for their track record of measurable outcomes, unbiased insight, and proven client satisfaction-especially as value-based care, AI, and digital health become the foundation of payer strategy." About the SurveyThe Q2 2025 Black Book Research survey gathered responses from 1,202 validated health plan, PBM, Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and commercial payer executives. Advisory firms were evaluated and ranked on 18 KPIs, including outcomes, ROI, responsiveness, innovation, strategic alignment, and client satisfaction. Contact: research@ | 800-863-7590 | Contact Information Press Office research@ SOURCE: Black Book Research View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire
