PETER ATKINSON misconstrues some of my remarks about the planned NHS changes (Letters, March 16).

While agreeing with greater GP involvement in decision-making, I too believe this could be achieved without the organisational upheaval now taking place.

However, his assertion that further use of the private sector is “going against the principles that the NHS was founded on” is erroneous.

The founding principle of the NHS was that medical treatment be freely available based on need, not that every service must come from state-run organisations. This principle remains intact.

Just what is it about the private sector seeking a profit when fulfilling NHS contracts that upsets Mr Atkinson?

The public habitually relies on, for example, air travel, drugs and food from the profit-seeking private sector and is satisfied that their provision is reasonably safe and efficient. The sector’s desire for profit spurs innovation as well as efforts to avoid poor quality with resultant financial penalties and loss of future business. This usually leads to better products, services, value for money and choice. Why should we be denied these benefits on the NHS as either patients or taxpayers?

Additional private sector involvement, which is routine in other developed countries’ healthcare systems, would be subject to the safeguards of detailed contracts agreed by GP consortia and of the same inspection regime as for existing NHS providers.

Concerns that so-called “privatisation” would lead inevitably to “untold damage” are demonstrably irrational.

Peter Reeves St Keyna Avenue, Hove