Ham against reforms

Chris Ham,at the King's Fund, is clearly against the NHS reforms as they stand and suggests that their continued stance is that "the means used need to be proportionate to the problems addressed".
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/health_bill_reform.html
He also describes the reforms as entailing "major risk" of diversion away from improving patient care. I agree with the above. However, I do not understand why Kaiser Permanente was required to validate the existence of perverse incentives in the NHS or that incentives should be there to promote care in community settings rather than in hospitals. Most of the NHS workforce could probably say these things. I am also uncomfortable with the introduction of another set of words which when put together are branded and given their own independent definition, as in "world class commissioning" (RIP), "unit of dental activity" (sooner RIP the better). The latest appears to be "accountable care systems". Now, if this just means care systems that are accountable, then I am fine with that. But if it means a collection of policies, strategies or ideology, or the latest idea marketed by business consultants then I am not. I am wholly behind the idea of spending on prevention to avoid spending later. The problem here, of course, is the time disparity between election intervals and the publication of the reaping of health benefits attributable to policies and strategies introduced in the election term. Overall I am just pleased that the King's Fund (and others) are not letting the politicians have a free reign.