NHS - largest ever privitisation

[p3t3r]

Cut finances and resources to the NHS, create a backlog of patients, then get a private company to clear the backlog....

 

Private company then looks to be the solution and way forward for the NHS!

 

Interestingly, some of the private companies who are taking NHS work have already been criticised by the Care Quality Commission.

 

Further reading here: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/12/nhs-agrees-largest-ever-privatisation-deal-to-tackle-backlog?CMP=share_btn_fb

 

 

The NHS should never ever be privatised.

[unclebulgaria67]

The problem with private companies taking part in a competition process for NHS services, is that they can cherry pick the bits they can make money from. NHS trusts find it very difficult to compete, because they are more complex organisations that provide full services include A&E, sometimes across many different sites.

 

The government say that only 6% of NHS services are provided by the private sector, but I would question that statistic. Whenever I look in the papers there is another story aout a private company taking over a previous NHS service.

 

The NHS is being badly managed under the current governments new system, as there are so many NHS trusts in financial difficulty. They cannot plan financially, when there is the danager of losing work to private. They need to know exactly what the situation is, so they can recruit Nurses and Doctors, rather than be paying agency staff huge amounts of money.

[p3t3r]

Yes, that 6% statistic is questionable.

 

It is my guess that many people do not realise that they receive treatment from a private company. For example, a private company would setup providing services for NHS patients, that private company then uses the NHS logo, staff within the private company wear NHS uniform as well as NHS identity cards.

 

A lot of NHS staff are becoming disillusioned with the NHS, if they are not already disillusioned!

 

You mention agency staff. Usually agency staff are paid more money than NHS staff in all job roles, HCA, RN, locum doctors etc, though in the case of hospital work, the NHS staff who are already familiar with the ward would work a lot harder than that of agency staff who may not know where things are stored etc..

 

I feel that the NHS is slowly being taken away, chunk by chunk. This is done in a deceitful manner whereby private comapnies use the NHS logo - and the people do not realise they are being treated by a private company and assume they are being treated by NHS as normal.

 

 

Ask an average person standing outside a building with NHS logos plastered all over it and the staff wearing NHS uniform and ID cards whether the building is NHS, the person would invariably answer yes! They have absolutely no idea that it is not NHS and is just a private company - a business.

[unclebulgaria67]

I have a local treatment centre which I think is open 365 days a year. It is labelled as NHS, but is run by a private company. I think they even paid for the new buildings, which they have also rented out part to a dental practice. As you say most people would think it was owned and run by NHS.

[Ford]

i'll be contentious and suggest that privatisation may be a way forward. atm, seems most private care is better than nhs care re hospitals. and as you suggest, in its current form the nhs is unsustainable.

eg ni conts etc going to a med ins. subject to statutory supervision, a proportion of any profits related to a min standard/quota to be re invested. thus still allowing for investor interest.

credits for those on benefits.

as you mention, some current private arrangements dont really work financially, but that seems due to the way it is arranged. needs to be full ish or not.

whether that, or a like, wld work or not?

[p3t3r]

ford, i think it would take a lot of persuading to change my opinion, but you are welcome to try lol

 

present system = the government supplies money for NHS to continue.

private companies = the government supplies money for NHS to continue in addition to supplying extra money for the private companies profits. the private company then encourages its employees (indirectly) to cut corners to increase profits.

 

I remember a care assistant some years ago who worked in a nursing home, she caught scabies (small mites) from the nursing home.

When asked why she didn't use barrier nursing, (such as gloves and apron), her reply astounded me - on each shift she was given ONE glove which had to last her the whole entire shift. This continued during the times that the nursing home had an outbreak of scabies. She was agency HCA and said that most places she worked there would be a small amount of gloves. This lady then went on to work at a hospital and she said in conversation one day that she was amazed at the amount of simple hygiene available in the hospital, enough gloves, aprons and handwash. Private companies VS NHS = no comparison

 

I would be interested in the other side of the argument, that privitisation would be beneficial to the NHS and patients, but at the moment I can not see it.

[Ford]

i wld add then that i meant hospital care. and, yes, some hospital care is excellent. not disputing that. but, the point is re its cost. which operates at a loss. when i say 'better', i mean re there being no overriding interest re cost. this goes to gp level, where 'cost' seems to be in issue. whilst insurance wld still have cost in mind, it seems cld be less restrictive. eg re a nhs gp, no scan. re private, scan available?

the argument is there but many dont want to explore it as it is a vote loser.

the nhs atm is at a loss. and now 24/7 according to Coneron. i know that care at the weekend is not the same as during the week, after 5 on a friday the AE care is not the same as what it wld be if it was during 'normal' mon - fri hours. well established. but it shld be already, how can lesser service on a weekend be justified! but, 24/7 will only work at a further loss in its current form.

[p3t3r]

Saturday evening, I have had my weekly tipple, so, post may not make that much sense lol

 

if you google "NHS 2022" that shows the direction the NHS is going.

 

There is a saying "behind every good doctor, there is an even better nurse" - the role of the nurse is to assist, not to diagnose or prescribe. Although that has now changed for some nurses who have studied further since they can write prescriptions and diagnose. Whilst they are good in their job, they do not have sufficient training as does a doctor. Cutting corners... In the future, who is to say that all nurses can not write prescriptions and diagnose?

 

The cost to the taxpayer in training a doctor is immense! So, the taxpayer pays for the docs education, ultimately for a private company to employ the doctor and make a profit from the taxpayers money / investment in the doctor.

 

Cost is always an issue, whether GP level or specialist hospital level, which imo leads to age discrimination. The NHS spends around 8% of its budget on managers (that is the official figure, though in reality it is probably a lot higher). If the NHS used more generic drugs instead of branded drugs, it would save a lot of money. It is unfortunate that doctors are given bribes by drug companies to promote their drugs over generic drugs.

 

If run effectively, (no bribes by drug companies, funding spent on cheaper treatment rather than on expensive treatment as dictated by drug companies, less managers), the NHS will be more effective in its role in providing care. As it is at the moment, it is run with targets, as a business, making a pathway to complete privitisation.

 

I do not know how private companies can make a profit from providing NHS services to people. It is not as if it is some retail store. The private companies would receive money from the government to provide NHS care whilst giving the private company profits. That same money, instead of paying private companies could be spent more effectively within the NHS. Since the NHS doesn't need to make a profit as does a private company, then that figures that either there would be more money for the NHS, or the taxpayer would contribute less.

 

I think the total bribes pain in UK by drug companies to doctors was around the £40,000,000.00 mark, give or take a million. What do the drug companies expect in return for such bribes? Certainly, they expect their products /drugs to be sold. For the NHS to spend money on their drugs that are sometimes 70, 80, or even 90% cheaper if using a generic version.

 

Corruption? Slowly creeping in!

 

Maybe privitasation would end such corruption... But privitisation is a business. A profit making company. If the NHS (non profit) doctors already accept bribes, would this situation be worse or better with privitisation?

[Ford]

the nhs is also a 'business', to at least break even. but it doesnt.

 

with privatisation, there wld the same aim at least to break even without degradation of services, otherwise penalised or revoked. then a proportion of any profits going into reinvestment, whilst still leaving a bit for the investors. all subject to very strict regulation. one incentive being the provision of rewardable good services. also, patient choice.

what i meant re the gp scan point, is that a scan cld be available if privately paying

hospitals such as dunedin seem to manage ok (and it doesnt profit them much to take nhs patients). if the govt cant manage things, then is poss time for a change. if it doesnt work, then can take it back.

 

you mention drug companies. yep, no doubt things going on there!.

 

ps. also a late one, after the footy

[p3t3r]

I do not understand =

 

Government gives NHS money, NHS uses the money. Government gives private business money to provide NHS services, that means private business makes a profit from taxpayers money? To me that is illogical. The private business main goal would be to produce a profit, this would be its main goal whilst patient care would come secondary to producing profit.

 

Sure the NHS is failing, it is failing because targets need to be met, bribes are being given, plus a very big problem with the drug companies and the costs of drugs supplied.

 

Take an example of cataract operations - this would cost NHS near to £1,000 per eye, similar cost provided by private health company. The difference being is that the private health company would make a profit from its service and the NHS would not profit. This is a lame example, but goes to show that whilst other companies can make a profit, the NHS is spending an equal amount of money on the same procedures - leading to the question, - why does it cost the NHS the same? What extra charges do the NHS pay over and above the private business would pay?

 

I used cataracts as an example, which leads me to something else. A lot of people are taking protein drinks and supplements, body builders, athletes etc.

Such protein drinks are causing cataracts to develop in younger people. Many GPs are seeing this - but nothing is done. NHS has not warned people about the dangers of protein drinks. This will just lead to more people requiring cataract removals within the next few years. Another lame example...

 

If NHS prepared for its future such as warning people of the dangers of certain foods and lifestyle, this would prevent a strain on the NHS in the future.

 

Unfortunately, NHS tends not to look into the future (apart from NHS 2022 visions) The NHS deals with its problems on a day to day basis, makes no plan for its future and allows unneeded managers, over priced drugs, equipment and treatment to eat away at its budget.

 

The government can not manage things as you say. The government allows for bribes to be paid to doctors. It allows NHS to purchase over priced equipment, drugs, treatments, - all of which eats away at the NHS budget. A radical overhaul is needed if the NHS is to cope with its future demands, but that radical overhaul should not include privitisation of the NHS. Why should the tax payer be forced to provide profits to a private company? Why should people who need treatment be treated as if they were a client or customer of a profit making company?

 

NHS has (supposedly) an anti discrimination policy. Yet elderly people are often denied simple operations that would enhance the quality of their life.

Imagine a private profit making business making decisions on who should and should not receive treatment?

 

You mention that GPs base things on cost. Whilst not untrue, can you imagine the GPs working for a private company intent on making a profit? The GP would be undermined further, not undermined by NHS budgets but undermined to a much greater extent by a private profit making company and its shareholders!

[Ford]

i dont fully understand my post either! maybe some things werent well expressed.

patient care shldnt suffer overall (there will always be a bad egg in any profession/service), care at a dunedin for eg is excellent. and as you say the cost is the same! re nhs choices a 'private' hosp usually comes up as an option, and many take the 'private' hosp. so, atm, there is already part use of private hospitals. if care is duff, then people can go elsewhere, end of the 'business'. like that one that was recently closed up re taking nhs patients. their quality care report/patient complaints was duff apparently.

i was referring to hospitals, patients covered by individual private medical insurance from their ni conts. not the govt blindly paying companies to profit.

'imagine' the nhs 'making business making decisions on who should and should not receive (certain) treatment'. already happening. you've seen the cases.

as you say, there also needs to be help from individuals/third parties.

anyway, i posed some poss issues re yr thread, in a roundabout advocate way . something needs to be done, as in its current form its unsustainable.

[unclebulgaria67]

i dont fully understand my post either! maybe some things werent well expressed.

patient care shldnt suffer overall (there will always be a bad egg in any profession/service), care at a dunedin for eg is excellent. and as you say the cost is the same! re nhs choices a 'private' hosp usually comes up as an option, and many take the 'private' hosp. so, atm, there is already part use of private hospitals. if care is duff, then people can go elsewhere, end of the 'business'. like that one that was recently closed up re taking nhs patients. their quality care was duff apparently.

i was referring to hospitals, patients covered by individual private medical insurance from their ni conts. not the govt blindly paying companies to profit.

'imagine' the nhs 'making business making decisions on who should and should not receive (certain) treatment'. already happening. you've seen the cases.

as you say, there also needs to be help from individuals/third parties.

anyway, i posed some poss issues re yr thread, in a roundabout advocate way . something needs to be done, as in its current form its unsustainable.

 

Thhe NHS was found to be the tenth best healthcare system in terms of value for money, based on the numbers of treatments for the money spent. Singapore was the best, but that is a small city state, where they employ a lot of foreign Doctors/Nurses who get paid less than eleswhere in the world. Also in Singapore it is quite common for accommodation to be provided at a cheap rate. Italy was the best in Europe (third best in world), as it was found to be cheaper and more efficient. But in Italy they do charge people who can afford to pay for thing like tests and prescriptions.

 

The NHS is affordable, provided government are willing to tax enough to pay for it. The problem is that people expect the best, but are not willing to put in what it would take