NHS Privatised behind our backs?

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by jayfx, 14 Mar 2015.

  1. Prestwich_Blue

    Prestwich_Blue

    Joined:
    26 Jan 2006
    Messages:
    48,823
    Location:
    Wherever I lay my hat that's my home
    Have to say yours was a top post as well Tim, from someone who knows what they're talking about. There's a lot of hysteria about "privatisation" but, if handled right, it can be a positive factor. If no though, it can be a nightmare.
     
  2. Ducado

    Ducado

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2007
    Messages:
    28,692
    Location:
    Top of the Tower
    My Mum has just had a cataract removed in a private hospital paid for through the NHS she also had a knee replaced using another private provider paid for by the NHS the treatment in both was top notch and free at the point of care, as long as you are getting the care and treatment does it matter who provides it?
     
  3. whp.blue

    whp.blue

    Joined:
    2 Jul 2007
    Messages:
    9,047
    Location:
    Rural Yorkshire
    One of the first things I did when I started work was to sort out a pension and sort out private Health care when I got married and had children I ensured we all had cover.

    I am happy to use the NHS but if the timetable for care is not acceptable I use BUPA I pay for both but if I was given the option I would opt out of the NHS

    The levels of waste within the NHS is appalling there are far too many people in the system who are paid not to give Health care.

    Every visitor to the UK should be made to have adequate private health care in place before they are allowed into the country.

    The problem in this Country is lots of people who bang on about free health care seem to find the money to smoke,drink alcohol and buy the latest consumer goods like xboxes and flat screen tv's They could easily use that money to ensure they had private health care but they choose not to.

    The NHS is very quickly becoming a millstone it is a bottomless pit I don't think you can ever spend enough on it.
     
  4. Rascal

    Rascal

    Joined:
    10 Jan 2005
    Messages:
    59,723
    Location:
    Paderne
    Team supported:
    RCD Espanyol
    Well that is an issue in itself. For mainstream stuff probably not that important, but for somebody like me it is hugely important.

    I already have to travel to Salford Royal as its the only place in Greater Manchester, indeed the whole of the North West that offers what i need. The nursing staff are all very experienced at dealing with my problems. A normal nurse would have no idea. Im just waiting for a bed on the ward now as due to cuts there are now only 14 beds instead of the 26 there used to be. It will be my 28th time on the ward and the familiarity i have with it and the way the ward operates is far more important to me than just recieving treatment no matter from whoever.
     
  5. Zin 'messiah' Zimmer

    Zin 'messiah' Zimmer

    Joined:
    6 May 2009
    Messages:
    19,004
    Location:
    over the rainbow
    It's a lazy mentality beng created by a board of directors, no vision and ultimately accepting the inevitable.... Point of care price is all well and good today, unfortunately this will change drastically over the next 5/10 years as profits will be the buzz word... It's just not a sustainable model any more!!!
     
  6. mcfc1632

    mcfc1632

    Joined:
    3 Jan 2009
    Messages:
    10,617

    Very much agree with your comments - the Health Service of the future is just too important to be continually subjected to fundamental changes of direction every time there is a change of government.

    Re your points:

    1. Use of PFI: For me (as someone that has negotiated many large PFI contracts on behalf of both the government and suppliers) PFI has its place based on the principle of risk transfer etc. but the reality is that we (the government) have a long history of poor contracting and the private sector wins out commercially almost every time. The drive for the exclusive use of PFI by the last Labour government though was for the wrong motives - balance sheet treatment.

    It is true that the balance of this was down to Labour, but making that statement on here just attracts 'tribal' behaviour from posters - best to say that it would have been better to have the Health Service provision independent of political interference - just effective governance arrangements. Also best to say that both main parties are as bad as each other to try and attract balanced discussion.

    2. Key performance targets and provider market: I agree that the targets such as waiting times were a very effective focus and achieved not only improvements but changes to the management culture and accountability. The management of service provision should for me just be approached like a lot of marketplaces where there is active management of suppliers to ensure that there is the range and level of services required. In other markets organisation would plan for direct provision or contracting as appropriate and stimulate/encouraged the development of niche/specialist services etc. Professional supplier market management is needed not unplanned driven my directives from transient governments.

    3: Changing demographics of the population: This for me is key and it is so frustrating to hear the debate be so repeatedly about tribal party preferences rather that the real need. People are getting older and the advances in medicine and wider understanding by individuals of well-being will increase the demand on health services and therefore drive up the costs. Also, drugs/treatments are increasing in their effectiveness - but they are also increasingly very expensive - the same for provision of service. It is totally impractical to plan for health provision to be delivered by a single National Health Service. Yes provision should be through a national strategy - commissioning of services should be increasingly linked to local/community needs and provision of services by a range of organisations best positioned to develop and maintain quality of service.

    I get frustrated that some on here seem to think that we still live in a world of 'carry on doctor' with some romantic notion of what the service should be based on original Bevan principles - as high quality as they were. The discussion quickly (and always) comes down to tribal warfare - what the NHS needs (IMO) is to be replaced by a Health & Social Care Service that is strategically managed and can be developed and operated free from the continuous distractions caused by interfering ministers acting for short term and ideological reasons.
     
  7. nobody can eat fifty eggs

    nobody can eat fifty eggs

    Joined:
    9 Sep 2011
    Messages:
    4,677
    Do people really believe that the government gives a shit about the masses who rely on free healthcare?

    They'll sooner line their own pockets and as the article in this link suggests, there is a definite vested interest with so many parliamentarians having a stake in private healthcare already:

    <a class="postlink" href="http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/compilation-of-parliamentary-financial.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co ... ncial.html</a>
     
  8. Zin 'messiah' Zimmer

    Zin 'messiah' Zimmer

    Joined:
    6 May 2009
    Messages:
    19,004
    Location:
    over the rainbow
    Spot on...... its a very sad set of circumstances, however, one which has been developing for the past 10 years...

    My company is the biggest provider for mental illness outside the NHS, 30% of the business are referrals from them, the correlation just keeps pointing up...

    We're also owned by an American bank
     
  9. ballbag

    ballbag

    Joined:
    21 Aug 2014
    Messages:
    613
    I work for a Company that arranges appointments for London-based NHS patients to have diagnostics (MRI, General/Vascular/MSK Ultrasounds, CT scans, audiology, cancer treatment, DEXA, endoscopies, etc) at about 40 clinics/leased out rooms in NHS and private hospitals and our own clinics too.
    Although we aren't part of the NHS, we have contracts with the health authorities in the areas we provide our services to. We basically receive a referral from a GP or clinician, contact the patient within 2-5 days of the referral being received, arrange the appointment within 2 weeks (unless a patient is unavailable to attend), post, text and email appointment details to the patient, send text and call with appointment reminders, carry out the scan, and then get the results back to the patient's GP or clinician within 5 working days of the scan being completed. If transport is required, then we arrange that too.

    And the majority of patients we speak to are pretty amazed at how fast that whole process is compared to relying solely on an overworked and low-on-resources NHS. As an example, I had a seizure in August 2014, my MRI scan was scheduled through the NHS and I finally got that booked in for January 2015. 4 weeks later I received a letter that I had to re-attend for a CT scan - then I had brain surgery at the end of February. A week before I had my op, I had a patient who needed an MRI scan. I arranged that for the next day at St Ann's in London and emailed the details, map, info to him whilst I was on the phone to the patient. The patient attended and phoned me up the day after to check if the report was with his GP. The report had been compiled, but not yet sent to the GP. So I emailed it to the GP whilst the patient was on the phone. The patient phoned back up 3 hours later to thank me for getting all that sorted (its just what we do) and that he would have phoned earlier but he had been on hold with his surgery for over an hour.

    We are a private company, but our goal is to increase the speed and efficiency of health care that these patients should be receiving. The patients don't pay for it, the surgeries and clinics use their budgeted spending to use us.

    I don't see a problem with it.
     
  10. urmston

    urmston

    Joined:
    2 Jul 2006
    Messages:
    5,153
    Location:
    not urmston
    General Practitioners flatly refused to join the NHS in 1948 and remain private contractors to it to this day.

    Dentists and opticians do NHS work as private contractors, not as NHS employees.

    Private provision of NHS work by family doctors, dentists and opticians has a long and successful history, providing most if not all of the NHS care many people get in any given year.

    Most of the scaremongering about further private provision of NHS labour comes from people who do very well from the status quo - NHS staff.
     

Share This Page