Nhs

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/07/18/tory-donor-s-firm-will-make-millions-from-nhs-shake-up-115875-22421239/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/18/are-nhs-reforms-really-needed

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/16/nhs-outsourcing-private-health-firms

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/financial-control-devolved-to-gps-in-huge-nhs-reform-gamble-2025070.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/jeremy-laurance-why-cant-ministers-leave-the-nhs-to-do-its-best-for-patients-2025071.html

I don't remember this being mentioned before/during or after the election?

If it cuts out the beaurocracy and makes the NHS more efficient then how that happens is irrelevant IMHO.

We'll all be in a position to comment on how it has succeeded (or not) in 5 years time.

If it cuts out the beaurocracy and makes the NHS more efficient then how that happens is irrelevant IMHO.

 

We'll all be in a position to comment on how it has succeeded (or not) in 5 years time.

Do you use the NHS?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/07/18/tory-donor-s-firm-will-make-millions-from-nhs-shake-up-115875-22421239/

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/18/are-nhs-reforms-really-needed

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/16/nhs-outsourcing-private-health-firms

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/financial-control-devolved-to-gps-in-huge-nhs-reform-gamble-2025070.html

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/jeremy-laurance-why-cant-ministers-leave-the-nhs-to-do-its-best-for-patients-2025071.html

 

I don't remember this being mentioned before/during or after the election?

This is very scary. There are some things in life that should not be governed by the profit motive and health is one of them.

Strange that, at a time when private healthcare is suffering a drop in income because of the recession, up pops a way of ensuring the continuance of private healthcare providers.

Some of us remember only too well what happened when non-clinical services in the NHS were market-tested / outsourced. Dirty, poorly maintained hospitals and a huge rise in MRSA. Thankfully many of these services were brought back in-house and things started to improve.

Let's hope the private providers don't treat patients like buses, i.e. if a service doesn't pay it gets axed.

Do you use the NHS?

Yes. And my wife and sister-in-law work in a hospital. Why?

There are some things in life that should not be governed by the profit motive and health is one of them.

Even though I'm 'naturally' conservative (with a small 'c') I tend to agree with you in principle.

But, I also see the other side of the coin.

Sometimes (but I agree, not all times) a profit making company can operate side by side a non-for-profit organisation like the NHS if properley regulated.

Yes, I accept philosphically that 'profit' and 'greed' are often fairly close bedfellows but, if 'company x' is making less profit than the cost of inefficiency that is being dispensed with then the taxpayer is better off because his/her money isn't being poured into maintaining an inefficient system (and trust me, based on the conversations I have to endure at home from my relatives that work in a hospital, the management tiers are inefficiency personified).

But, yes, being a chap who can see both sides of these sort of debates, I can see that there is a fairly fine line between a company taking 'enough' profit out of the systems versus taking 'too much' and to me that line is crossed if they were to take more money out of the system than the wasted taxpayers money that is being saved/re-invested.

And, yes, it could well end up down the "scary" path that you forecast but there again it might not. People will be able to judge for themselves in 5 years time.

Just as America has come out of the dark ages, we seem to be going back. Health, education and policing should never be run for profit as quality in service will drop if profits are not being made; it is simply too much of a risk. What happens if, for example, Lymington Hospital fails to make a 'profit' and the General does? I imagine Lymington would close or see reduced services (despite being a fantastic hopsital) and the General would be kept open (dispite being in a **** poor state already) meaning that people in rural areas would have to travel into Southampton (which is a bloody hassle at the best of time) rather than the relatively easy option of getting to Lymington from areas such as Beaulieu, Hythe, Blackfield etc. This is fine for those who drive or the 'young', but what about the OAPs? Buses from these parts of the Waterside into town are sporadic at best!!

I also highly doubt that if the General made a profit, it would be put back into the hospital, more than likely into the back bloody pockets of those in charge.

Trousers

Thoughtful post - well it's got me thinking!

I've worked in the NHS (in a non-clinical capacity) for many, many years. I can remember the drab, shabby buildings when I started and I compare those to the beautiful hospitals built in the past few years. I can remember the long, long waiting lists just to get an Outpatient appointment and contrast that with, for example, Mr TF getting his knee operated on within 6 weeks of seeing his GP this year.

I came into the NHS just as the purchaser / provider split was introduced (in 1991) and the upheaval it caused at the time. These days, I question the necessity of both the Strategic Health Authority AND the Primary Care Trust but I do think some sort of regional body needs to be retained and I'm not sure at all about the wisdom of passing on the budgets down to GP level. All the economy of scale savings will be lost and there is the risk that my local GP or yours will not have the experience or nous to run the whole service at a local level.

All that the NHS needs is good local care - patients, in the main, don't want choice. They want the best available, close to home. Bring in competition and shareholder influence and there's a real risk that some services will just not be available any more if they don't produce the right outcome. This will be judged on the bottom line and not on clinical outcomes. I can see that relatively affluent areas will be well served but that, potentially, deprived areas will lose out. After all, deprived areas (or even areas with a high elderly population) will cost more and if the service is judged on profit per square foot then cost cutting in those poorly performing areas will be curtailed.

As you rightly say, let's see where we are in 5 years time. But, worryingly, it's always easier to dismantle something than it is to put it back together again.

If Labour were so against Private Companies getting involved with NHS functions, they why did they allow Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust, to be put out to tender privatising the whole of this NHS trust.It will now basically be a francise, with Care UK, Circle Health, Interhealth Canada (UK), Ramsay Health Care UK and Serco Health bidding to run it.The FIRST time this has been allowed to happen, even Nasty Mrs T didn't go this far, but Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham did, with backing (at the time) from Labour leadership candidates Ed Balls,Ed Milliband and David Milliband.

Where were the howls of protest and posts about the Nasty Labour Party? It seems that Labour are allowed to privatise bits of the NHS but not the Torys or Lib/Dems.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/18/mental-health-nhs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/14/david-cameron-nhs-pmqs

Bad news if you have mental health problems or cancer :-(

"Andy Burnham says the effects of the coalition’s proposed health changes make him want to weep." Was he crying for the people of Huntington when HE sold off Hinchingbrooke Health Care to a private "for profit" organisation?

During the 1980 - 90s, the Conservative government closed many of the Mental Institutions - throwing the inmates out to the ravages of the Private Sector. They finished up in State funded Rented squats!

By closing mental hospitals, the Tories were able to sell off thousands of acres prime land for house building the proceeds of which were squandered like the oil revenues.

However, when it comes to someone with Cancer and guaranteeing the time taken to see a Consultant, Cameron cant give a straight answer.

The caring Tories. Disgraceful.

If Labour were so against Private Companies getting involved with NHS functions, they why did they allow Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust, to be put out to tender privatising the whole of this NHS trust.It will now basically be a francise, with Care UK, Circle Health, Interhealth Canada (UK), Ramsay Health Care UK and Serco Health bidding to run it.The FIRST time this has been allowed to happen, even Nasty Mrs T didn't go this far, but Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham did, with backing (at the time) from Labour leadership candidates Ed Balls,Ed Milliband and David Milliband.

 

Where were the howls of protest and posts about the Nasty Labour Party? It seems that Labour are allowed to privatise bits of the NHS but not the Torys or Lib/Dems.

It's wrong - as is the setting up of Independent Health Centres which are the precursor to this. I can't be bothered to go into detail about what IHTCs do so I suggest you Google it. Even the consultants are against them (apart from the ones that have a vested, or should I say investment, in them). You will see from the fact sheet provided by Hinchingbrooke itself that it is a not-for-profit business that is out to tender. I'm not sure how the current government's plans for the NHS will impact on this process:

http://www.strategicprojectseoe.co.uk/feedback_hinchingbrooke.php?id_sec=96

There were, and still are, lots of howls in the Labour Party about any privatisation of the NHS. However, to my knowledge, private healthcare companies have not made 'donations' to the Labour Party as they have, allegedly, to the Conservative Health Minister's funds.

"Andy Burnham says the effects of the coalition’s proposed health changes make him want to weep." Was he crying for the people of Huntington when HE sold off Hinchingbrooke Health Care to a private "for profit" organisation?

It hasn't been 'sold' yet. It was out to tender with the private partner due to be chosen once the ITT is in. This will be informed by the outcome of public consultation and this isn't due to end until mid August. Then, if the scheme is still to go ahead, the ITTs will be submitted and shortlisted and then the process to select a preferred bidder will be undertaken. That will take about 6 months minimum.

So it hasn't been sold. Read the link I posted above - it explains the process.

During the 1980 - 90s, the Conservative government closed many of the Mental Institutions - throwing the inmates out to the ravages of the Private Sector. They finished up in State funded Rented squats!

By closing mental hospitals, the Tories were able to sell off thousands of acres prime land for house building the proceeds of which were squandered like the oil revenues.

 

 

 

.

Labour had 13 years to restablish these. 13 years in which they throw money at the NHS in the manner of a BP oil spill.How many Mental Institutions did they open and why are we still (after 13 years of a caring Labour govt) locking up in prison, more people with mental health problems than ever before.

And why did Labour privitise parts of the NHS, if "for profit" health providers are such a bad thing?

It hasn't been 'sold' yet. It was out to tender with the private partner due to be chosen once the ITT is in. This will be informed by the outcome of public consultation and this isn't due to end until mid August. Then, if the scheme is still to go ahead, the ITTs will be submitted and shortlisted and then the process to select a preferred bidder will be undertaken. That will take about 6 months minimum.

 

So it hasn't been sold. Read the link I posted above - it explains the process.

Labour put the wheels in motion to sell it to a "for profit" Private Company. How many more hospitals would they have put out for tender, had they won the election?

From selling off parts of the NHS, to locking up in prison more people with mental health issues, Labour hypocrisy makes we want "to weep".

Labour put the wheels in motion to sell it to a "for profit" Private Company. How many more hospitals would they have put out for tender, had they won the election?

 

From selling off parts of the NHS, to locking up in prison more people with mental health issues, Labour hypocrisy makes we want "to weep".

You obviously haven't read the link from the hospital trust itself that I took the trouble to provide. It is to be a NOT FOR PROFIT set up - if it gets the go-ahead. My money would be on it not going ahead on that basis, but rather that the provider WILL be able to make a profit for its shareholders on the back of sick people. Disgusting.

Oh, and the only parts of the NHS service to be 'privatised' by Labour were support services such as salary payments, some soft and hard FM, some procurement.

You obviously haven't read the link from the hospital trust itself that I took the trouble to provide. It is to be a NOT FOR PROFIT set up - if it gets the go-ahead. My money would be on it not going ahead on that basis, but rather that the provider WILL be able to make a profit for its shareholders on the back of sick people. Disgusting.

 

Oh, and the only parts of the NHS service to be 'privatised' by Labour were support services such as salary payments, some soft and hard FM, some procurement.

I'm sorry but I really am struggling to understand your point. It is a "NOT FOR PROFIT" set up, but "WILL" be able to make profit on the back of sick people. Fair play, you seem to be saying that's "disgusting" whether set up by Tories/Lib Dems or Labour.However Burnham and other New Labour hypocrites have no such beliefs. Labour privatisation good, Tory/Lib Dem privatisation bad seems to be their policy.The truth in my opinion, is somewhere in the middle.

I'm sorry but I really am struggling to understand your point. It is a "NOT FOR PROFIT" set up, but "WILL" be able to make profit on the back of sick people. Fair play, you seem to be saying that's "disgusting" whether set up by Tories/Lib Dems or Labour.However Burnham and other New Labour hypocrites have no such beliefs. Labour privatisation good, Tory/Lib Dem privatisation bad seems to be their policy.The truth in my opinion, is somewhere in the middle.

You need to see an optician, love, to get your tunnel vision corrected. The original plan for Hinchingbrooke was for the company eventually selected to provide the services on a 'not for profit' basis (see the link ). However, with the privatisation being planned by the current government, such providers will operate on a profit-making basis. Understand now?

The only parts of the NHS privatised (with profit making partners) were non-clinical services, a few of which I listed. Many of these services have been brought back in-house because the private providers didn't provide the required service level.

Labour had 13 years to restablish these. 13 years in which they throw money at the NHS in the manner of a BP oil spill.How many Mental Institutions did they open and why are we still (after 13 years of a caring Labour govt) locking up in prison, more people with mental health problems than ever before.

 

And why did Labour privitise parts of the NHS, if "for profit" health providers are such a bad thing?

Well i could discuss social care/community care policy/legislatiion with you for many years but i guess you would disagree.

The reason for the White paper, simply it is the Tories and LibDems (and let's stop pretending they are anything other than Tories now) way of trying to create more wealth for their already rich friends at the expense of the country as a whole.

It took years of Thatcher before people rioted in the streets. Cameron will face social breakdown sooner.

And so the privatisation begins

You need to see an optician, love, to get your tunnel vision corrected. The original plan for Hinchingbrooke was for the company eventually selected to provide the services on a 'not for profit' basis (see the link ). However, with the privatisation being planned by the current government, such providers will operate on a profit-making basis. Understand now?

 

The only parts of the NHS privatised (with profit making partners) were non-clinical services, a few of which I listed. Many of these services have been brought back in-house because the private providers didn't provide the required service level.

Perhaps you should tell The Guardian and Unions that it was not for profit until "the privatisation being planned by the current government, such providers will operate on a profit-making basis."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/19/hinchingbrooke-huntington-hospital-nhs-private

According to this article dated 19/2/2010 way before the election was called." Health service unions have called on the government to suspend the tendering process that will lead to the virtual privatisation of an entire NHS trust and its £40m debt."

Karen Jennings, head of health at Unison, said: "The views of local people, who want to keep their hospital in the NHS, are being trampled on. ...This whole outsourcing process [is] an unnecessary costly and dangerous experiment. Hinchingbrooke Hospital does have debts, but they are no worse than many other trusts."

Why would 5 private Companies want to get involved in Feb 2010, if it was "NOT FOR PROFIT"?, or did they know the Tories were going to win the election and therefore all of a sudden they could make profits.

Perhaps I will visit an optician, after 13 years of a wonderful caring Labour Govt, I presume it's free and wont cost me anything?

Perhaps you should tell The Guardian and Unions that it was not for profit until "the privatisation being planned by the current government, such providers will operate on a profit-making basis."

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/19/hinchingbrooke-huntington-hospital-nhs-private

 

According to this article dated 19/2/2010 way before the election was called." Health service unions have called on the government to suspend the tendering process that will lead to the virtual privatisation of an entire NHS trust and its £40m debt."

 

Karen Jennings, head of health at Unison, said: "The views of local people, who want to keep their hospital in the NHS, are being trampled on. ...This whole outsourcing process [is] an unnecessary costly and dangerous experiment. Hinchingbrooke Hospital does have debts, but they are no worse than many other trusts."

 

 

Why would 5 private Companies want to get involved in Feb 2010, if it was "NOT FOR PROFIT"?, or did they know the Tories were going to win the election and therefore all of a sudden they could make profits.

 

Perhaps I will visit an optician, after 13 years of a wonderful caring Labour Govt, I presume it's free and wont cost me anything?

Let's see what the NHS Trust itself says, shall we?

TOP 10 FACTS

About HinchingbrookeNext Steps.

Please let us know your thoughts by Wednesday 11 August 2010. If you’d rather complete a paper version of this feedback form, please download Next Steps News 3 (for a copy click here)

1. Hinchingbrooke hospital is not being closed; there were no plans to close it in 2006, and there are no plans to close it now.

2. Hinchingbrooke is not being privatised. What is being offered is a franchise to operate the hospital.

3. Patients will continue to receive NHS services, free at the point of delivery.

4. Staff will continue to be employed by the NHS, retaining their NHS terms and conditions.

5. Hinchingbrooke’s buildings and assets will remain within the NHS, as will any benefit derived from them.

6. The public is being involved in the process. There are three waves of

public engagement, spanning the entire Hinchingbrooke Next Steps project, and numerous ways in which people can feed in their ideas and practical suggestions.

7. A&E and maternity are not earmarked for closure.

8. Treatment for NHS patients is the priority. This is about NHS patients.

9. The successful franchisee will not be making a profit at the expense

of patient care. They will be subject to the same clinical and operational scrutiny as every NHS hospital.

10. The franchisee will operate as if it is the Trust. All accountabilities and governance will remain as they are now, without change

See?

Here is the link again:

http://www.strategicprojectseoe.co.uk/feedback_hinchingbrooke.php?id_sec=96

Whilst I don't think its a good idea, it WAS the Labour plan. The process hasn't finished yet and, to reiterate, I have no doubt that the Terms of Reference will change and the whole shooting match will go to the private sector on a profit-making basis now that the ConDems are in charge.

Until someone posts a link to the story in the Daily Express or the Daily Mail this left wing spin isn't worth debating.

I was going to make a witty remark, but I'm sure it would have resulted in infraction points.

So under Labour it was to become a franchise, ran by a private Company for a profit?

Had they won the election, one of the Companies I listed above would have run this NHS trust, with any profits going into the Shareholders pockets.

So under Labour it was to become a franchise, ran by a private Company for a profit?

 

Had they won the election, one of the Companies I listed above would have run this NHS trust, with any profits going into the Shareholders pockets.

What part of 'not for profit' don't you understand? Oh, hang on - you're a Tory. You don't understand the concept, do you.

See bullet points 2 and 9 in the top ten list.

Until someone posts a link to the story in the Daily Express or the Daily Mail this left wing spin isn't worth debating.

I think you mean the Torygraph for your higher quality right wing spin. The Daily Mail and Express aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

One only has to look at the wasteful way New Labour ran the NHS to see that it is in need of a massive overhaul. In the private sector you either turn up for work, or you are taken through set procedures. In the public sector it would seem you are given incentives to turn up for work. I have great respect for public sector workers and the brilliant job they do, but to offer spa breaks, casino gambling lessons and coctail making master classes for simply doing what they're paid to do is ridiculous. The money spent of these "jollys" should be spent on making sick people better - isn't that the job of the NHS?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295536/Turn-work-win-spa-break-nurses-told.html

2. Hinchingbrooke is not being privatised. What is being offered is a franchise to operate the hospital.

Read my first post, I said it's basically being francised. Francise/Private pretty similar in my eyes.

9. The successful franchisee will not be making a profit at the expense

of patient care. They will be subject to the same clinical and operational scrutiny as every NHS hospital.

AT THE EXPENSE OF PATIENT CARE. This is not the same as not making a profit.

Companies bidding for a francise, where they cant make a profit, interesting concept, but a right load of pony. Why were the 5 listed interested, to make money. How do they make money, by running a service previously run as a public service.

One only has to look at the wasteful way New Labour ran the NHS to see that it is in need of a massive overhaul. In the private sector you either turn up for work, or you are taken through set procedures. In the public sector it would seem you are given incentives to turn up for work. I have great respect for public sector workers and the brilliant job they do, but to offer spa breaks, casino gambling lessons and coctail making master classes for simply doing what they're paid to do is ridiculous. The money spent of these "jollys" should be spent on making sick people better - isn't that the job of the NHS?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295536/Turn-work-win-spa-break-nurses-told.html

you are a sucker if you believe their lies

One only has to look at the wasteful way New Labour ran the NHS to see that it is in need of a massive overhaul. In the private sector you either turn up for work, or you are taken through set procedures. In the public sector it would seem you are given incentives to turn up for work. I have great respect for public sector workers and the brilliant job they do, but to offer spa breaks, casino gambling lessons and coctail making master classes for simply doing what they're paid to do is ridiculous. The money spent of these "jollys" should be spent on making sick people better - isn't that the job of the NHS?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295536/Turn-work-win-spa-break-nurses-told.html

You really haven't got a clue have you Stanley and are just making yourself look more stupid than people already know you are.

Until someone posts a link to the story in the Daily Express or the Daily Mail this left wing spin isn't worth debating.

Stop trolling Stanley.

Anyone that suggests the NHS is currently a thoroughly fair and working organisation is in dream land IMO

I agree that anything life threatening such as cancer, heart attacks ETC than the NHS responds very well but IMHO anything else that is not directly life threatening but can have large affects on health and general wellbeing/Living they respond very very poorly, often not even caring.

I say this having been through them twice for an operation within the past 5 years and both times when walking into A&E i have self diagnosed the problem that has taken the NHS teams a year to diagnose thoroughly, both times telling me 'there is no way it is that, there is no way you felt what you felt at the time of injury'.

Umm, perhaps if i saw the top consultant both times it wouldn't have taken a f*cking year for your IMO underqualified underlings to send me away and away telling me there was nothing wrong.

Next year i am going private

The country is very broke. We will all pay for this somehow however, there are things that we all still need to pay for. The defence of the country, education and NHS but we need to do all three in the best way for the country.

Even though I'm 'naturally' conservative (with a small 'c') I tend to agree with you in principle.

 

But, I also see the other side of the coin.

 

Sometimes (but I agree, not all times) a profit making company can operate side by side a non-for-profit organisation like the NHS if properley regulated.

 

Yes, I accept philosphically that 'profit' and 'greed' are often fairly close bedfellows but, if 'company x' is making less profit than the cost of inefficiency that is being dispensed with then the taxpayer is better off because his/her money isn't being poured into maintaining an inefficient system (and trust me, based on the conversations I have to endure at home from my relatives that work in a hospital, the management tiers are inefficiency personified).

 

But, yes, being a chap who can see both sides of these sort of debates, I can see that there is a fairly fine line between a company taking 'enough' profit out of the systems versus taking 'too much' and to me that line is crossed if they were to take more money out of the system than the wasted taxpayers money that is being saved/re-invested.

 

And, yes, it could well end up down the "scary" path that you forecast but there again it might not. People will be able to judge for themselves in 5 years time.

Presumably that means those who are either

A In continued good health or

B Economically prudent to treat

Those who cost too much, and even life illnesses such as diabetes are very costly, might fall prey to the chase for 'economical prudence'?

you are a sucker if you believe their lies

As posted on another thread, earlier today.

Ok. So we've established that some people think that it's immoral and/or "disgusting" for private companies to make profit out of people's ill health.

So where does that leave drug companies?

Ok. So we've established that some people think that it's immoral and/or "disgusting" for private companies to make profit out of people's ill health.

 

So where does that leave drug companies?

ooooops......now you done it

ooooops......now you done it

Fret ye not....they'll be off harvesting dozens of links to Guardian articles and posting them on here before you can say "all profit is evil"

Oops, nearly forgot one of those little winkie things: ;-)

Ok. So we've established that some people think that it's immoral and/or "disgusting" for private companies to make profit out of people's ill health.

 

So where does that leave drug companies?

See, this is the advantage of the NHS. Because of its buying power, it has managed to drive down the costs of the drugs it buys.

Drug companies do make profit but much of that is derived from 'over the counter' remedies. And a large amount of 'profit' is re-invested into research. As the partner of one who works in the industry, I can tell you that the cost of this research is huge due to the very strict demands of testing and the multi-million pounds' worth of equipment required.

Of course, some of the profit is used to support pressure groups who want the NHS to buy the novel drugs the companies are developing.

"The commonest complaint from those who work in the organisation is that it is being reformed so often staff are never left to get on with the job they do best – treating patients. The NHS is our most popular national institution – but ministers cannot leave it alone. As each new reform succeeds the last, staff become preoccupied with their jobs and their future prospects, and arguing about structures. There is never a chance, they say, for the existing arrangement to bed down and prove itself before".

This quote from the Independent article is the problem in a nutshell. What the NHS needs is stability to run the service, but instead it is restructured or tinkered with on average every three years. Anyone who thinks the regular rounds of massive consultants fees; consultation exercises; redundancy payments / hiring costs for same job different title etc leads to a more efficient service rather than a less effective one is deluded imo.

The NHS is the 3rd largest employer in the world, behind the Chinease Army and the Indian Railways.

1 in 23 people in the UK work for the NHS.

Just thought Id add those little factoids.....

What part of 'not for profit' don't you understand? Oh, hang on - you're a Tory. You don't understand the concept, do you.

 

See bullet points 2 and 9 in the top ten list.

That is not saying "not for profit".

See, this is the advantage of the NHS. Because of its buying power, it has managed to drive down the costs of the drugs it buys.

Having the muscle power to drive down costs is one thing, having the 'private company' mentality and hard-nosed business minded management to actually carry it out is another.

Take my local primary school. They had the 'weight' of Hampshire County Council behind them when going out to tender for the building of a new wing of the school. When I heard how much they ended up paying for certain aspects of the project I was gobsmacked at the costs.

It can often work the other way. Builders and drug companies can (to all intents and purposes) collude on their pricing structures for publicly run organisations because they know that they are dealing with a cash cow and (more often than not) procurement people who don't typically have a hard-nosed business background.

I'm generalising a tad there I know but from the anecdotal evidence I've seen both in the education and heath sector this 'bargaining power' isn't exploited as effectively as, say, Tesco does with it's suppliers.

What is the mark-up on the average drug supplied by a drug company to the NHS? This would reveal how successful they are at influencing prices.

Having the muscle power to drive down costs is one thing, having the 'private company' mentality and hard-nosed business minded management to actually carry it out is another.

 

Take my local primary school. They had the 'weight' of Hampshire County Council behind them when going out to tender for the building of a new wing of the school. When I heard how much they ended up paying for certain aspects of the project I was gobsmacked at the costs.

 

It can often work the other way. Builders and drug companies can (to all intents and purposes) collude on their pricing structures for publicly run organisations because they know that they are dealing with a cash cow and (more often than not) procurement people who don't typically have a hard-nosed business background.

 

I'm generalising a tad there I know but from the anecdotal evidence I've seen both in the education and heath sector this 'bargaining power' isn't exploited as effectively as, say, Tesco does with it's suppliers.

 

What is the mark-up on the average drug supplied by a drug company to the NHS? This would reveal how successful they are at influencing prices.

Actually, there are some very good points being made here. Trousers and myself have disagreed sometimes on the Lounge - and I'm sorry Trousers that I went too far on one post that I felt strongly about - but the public sector doesn't realise how important it's buying power and R&D potential is and in my experience (I've worked across different sectors, sometimes in the same job) gets tied into preferential contracts that are only preferantial for the supplier from a procurement perspective. I think it boils down to a lack of commercial awareness on the part of the oldest style public sector managers who need to be swept away to bring a more dynamic culture through. The construction industry is an example - I have many friends and contacts in that sector and the reduced schools' building programme is going to hit them hard. Yet one wonders if previous projects could have been more cost effective and efficient so that these reductions were not so painful.

When construction projects in the public sector are out to tender the following process is followed:

1. Outline plans are drawn up (by the hospital / education department).

2. The Building Surveyors Handbook rates are used to estimate the approximate cost of the project (the rates will vary from one area to another)

3. The project is put out to competitive tender. The estimated price is not given, but rather kept confidential and with a contingency sum added

4. The most competitive tender in terms of cost, time and quality is awarded the contract. Comprehensive scoring methods are used to evaluate each bid

There have been a number of cases of collusion or 'Buggins Turn', most notably at a Nottingham hospital and it's people like me, experienced in auditing construction contracts, who have instigated an OFT investigation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/apr/17/construction.carillionbusiness

http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/4644485.Huge_fines_for_collusion_among_construction_firms/

Procurement managers in the public sector have to be members of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply, the same as procurement managers in the private sector. I hold this qualification as I was a Procurement Manager in the NHS before becoming an auditor specialising in PFI, P21, LIFT and capital contract audit so I do know what I'm talking about.

Building Schools for the Future projects initially took a long time to get underway and this is mainly because the project wasn't just to build or refurbish one school. It involves the whole education department for a particular authority having to review and consult with parents, teachers and pupils and sometimes local Social Services and the NHS about the overall need of the education service in the authority's domain. Only then, once a clear pathway has been established to take account of, for example, education for special needs, authority-wide IT etc. etc. can the WHOLE project be put out to tender. The bid process, because it has to be conducted within EU procurement rules, takes at least 6 months. Once the successful bidder has been chosen, designs have to be worked up and considered with end users.

Once a BSF partnership is in place further phases are much, much quicker. It's the initial conceptual and bidding process that takes time and there are no shortcuts here (at least not without parents and teachers complaining that they haven't been consulted).

So it's not quite so simple (and inefficient) as the media would have you believe.

Further information and advice available for a fee

Ok. So we've established that some people think that it's immoral and/or "disgusting" for private companies to make profit out of people's ill health.

 

So where does that leave drug companies?

Depends if you mean 'over the counter' or prescription medication...

Depends if you mean 'over the counter' or prescription medication...

Same thing ....most 'evil' profit making drug companies make both.

But maybe in the same spirit of the NHS, they should be banned in the UK and a 'National Peoples Drug Company' formed to research, develop, manufacture and distribute the entire drug requirements for the National peoples Health Service......After all it would be so much more efficient and effective than those evil 'for profit' private companies....I can see it now..all those Austin Allegro type cutting edge drugs pushing the boundaries of research and development....all at a bargain price

The rest of the world will be banging at the door trying to place orders for the latest and greatest products.

Same thing ....most 'evil' profit making drug companies make both.

 

But maybe in the same spirit of the NHS, they should be banned in the UK and a 'National Peoples Drug Company' formed to research, develop, manufacture and distribute the entire drug requirements for the National peoples Health Service......After all it would be so much more efficient and effective than those evil 'for profit' private companies....I can see it now..all those Austin Allegro type cutting edge drugs pushing the boundaries of research and development....all at a bargain price

 

The rest of the world will be banging at the door trying to place orders for the latest and greatest products.

Anything's got to be better than coachloads of elderly people crossing the border between the US and Canada because they can't afford to pay for their drugs in the US.