There has been much talk of Gordon Brown following up one of his most successful early initiatives as chancellor (making the Bank of England independent) with a similar approach to the National Health Service (NHS) when he moves from Number Eleven to Number Ten.
The idea of NHS independence was floated as long ago as last September, recently won the backing of the British Medical Association (BMA), and would certainly give the government some respite from having to defend a constant stream of contentious and highly sensitive decisions. But what would it mean for NHS workers?
Back in February, the Department of Health signed a partnership agreement with NHS Employers and the NHS unions, with the aim of "developing a strategy of engagement" at local level in the NHS. This could well form the basis for a more modern system of industrial relations at hospital level.
But it is difficult to see how this or "independence" would have any real meaning on the bigger resourcing and workforce issues. Twenty years of independent pay review bodies have proved that pay-setting - a multi-billion pound exercise - can hardly be removed from the sphere of politics. Taxpayers will continue to foot the bill, and we elect governments to act on behalf of the taxpayer in matters such as this.
Similarly, overall levels of public funding, workforce planning and the building of new hospitals (or more particularly the closing down of old ones) are all incredibly political issues. Hard to see how a government can hand that lot over to a body which is truly independent - how can it, unless it also hands over the means to raise resources as well?
Given that we can't have quangos raising their own taxes, it does raise the question about what sort of financial independence the NHS would enjoy. No wonder many independent commentators and the unions are a little sceptical, and warn that the worst case scenario is a privately owned and run NHS.