Will Privatising the NHS Fix It or Break It Beyond Repair?

Mariam Arshad

For years, the NHS has been called the Pride of Britain - a healthcare system built in 1948, on the principle that no one should have to pay for its services and treatment - a commitment to fairness and social responsibility. But lately, it feels like it’s barely staying afloat. With endless waiting lists to even get an appointment, constant strikes from doctors, and a budget that never seems to be big enough, some people argue that the NHS needs serious change and reformation. 

One of the biggest debates: Privatisation. Many say that bringing in the private sector could make the NHS more efficient, cut costs for the government, and improve the otherwise dwindling patient care. Others think it would tear apart everything the NHS stands for, and leave us with a two-tier system where the rich, who can afford it, get treated first and everyone else is left waiting. 

So, is privatisation the solution? Or would it just make things worse? 

Would Privatisation Actually Work?

The main argument for privatising parts of the NHS is that it would reduce waste and bring in more funding. Right now, the NHS is entirely funded by taxpayers’ money - which means it only has whatever budget the government decides to allocate it. The problem with this: demand for NHS services is constantly increasing, but funding isn’t keeping up. The NHS is expected to deliver world class care, but with more patients than ever and limited resources, it’s struggling to cope. 

Some argue that introducing more private companies could fix this. Instead of relying solely on government money, private firms could help fund services and invest in new technology. This would also create competition as private providers would be motivated to offer the best services at the highest cost in order to maximise profit, which might drive up efficiency. As the NHS is often criticised for its substantial admin costs , private companies would reduce this bureaucracy by having a worthy incentive to streamline operations. In theory, this could mean shorter waiting times, better staff pay, and an NHS that is actually able to keep up with demand. 

Countries like Germany and France already have partially privatised healthcare systems, where insurance companies and private providers work alongside the state. Could something similar work here? 

The Risks: Will We End Up Like the US?

The biggest fear for many is that privatisation would turn the NHS into a business, where money matters more than patient care. Right now, everyone in the UK gets treated based on need, not on how much money they have, but that could change completely. 

Let's look at the US healthcare system - one of the most expensive in the world. If you don’t have insurance, you’re in trouble. Even an ambulance ride can cost hundreds, hospital stays can leave you thousands in debt, and life-saving medication is only available if you can afford it. If the UK moves towards a system where private firms control more of healthcare, there’s a real risk that we’ll lose the universal access the NHS was built and founded upon. Whilst we can argue that introducing minor levels of privatisation is viable, and the UK would never fully adopt an American-styled healthcare system, any privatisation risks moving in this direction.

Although it can be advantageous, it's not without its flaws; cost-cutting. Private firms are motivated by profit, so they’ll always look for ways to maximise revenue - whether that’s reducing staff numbers, cutting wages, or limiting certain treatments. We’ve already seen some NHS services outsourced to private companies, for example; Circle, a private healthcare company was given control of NHS-run Hinchingbrooke hospital to improve efficiency. However, they pulled out of the contract early, citing financial unsustainability and the hospital was later rated inadequate due to poor care, and the NHS had to step back in. Likewise in many other cases, the results haven’t been great. Reports have shown that privatised services sometimes cost the NHS more, because private firms can charge high fees while delivering lower-quality care. 

Unlike consumer goods, healthcare doesn’t function well as a free market. Patients don’t always have the knowledge or power to make the best choices - they rely on medical professionals to guide them due to asymmetric information. If profit-driven companies dominate, they may push expensive or unnecessary treatments, prioritising their financial gain over what’s best for patients. This kind of exploitation has been seen in countries such as India, where companies even go so far to push doctors past their moral compass in order to squeeze patients out of their money. 

So, What’s the Alternative? 

If privatisation isn’t the answer, then what is?

One option is to increase NHS funding, but instead of just raising taxes for everyone, the government could target big corporations and the super-rich. Right now, companies like Amazon, Google, and Starbucks make billions in the UK but pay very little tax. If they were forced to pay their fair share, that money could go directly into the NHS.

 Another solution is investing in technology. AI and digital systems could help reduce admin work, predict patient needs, and make hospitals run more efficiently. Instead of selling off parts of the NHS, why not fix the system from within? 

Some also argue that the real problem isn’t funding - it’s mismanagement. The NHS wastes billions on bureaucracy, inefficient contracts, and outdated systems. Sorting that out first might do more good than handing it over to private companies. 

Final Verdict: Fix or Financial Disaster?

Privatising the NHS might make it more efficient - but at what cost? The risk of inequality - of turning healthcare into a luxury rather than a right, rising costs, and a focus on profit over patients makes it a dangerous road to go down. 

If the NHS is going to survive, it undoubtedly needs change - but selling it off to the highest bidder might not be the answer. Once we lose universal healthcare, there's a good chance we won’t get it back and that's a risky gamble.