Save the NHS!

platypus said:
So nothing useful to add other than your normal Conservative bashing.

Business as usual then.
Click to expand...

I'll leave it up to others to decide whether or not I started this thread to bash the Conservatives or because I genuinely care about the performance of the NHS. Up until now I deliberately tried to keep the Conservative bashing out of this thread, concentrating on the bad law they passed instead - but now there is a general election campaign in full swing and apparently the NHS tops voters concerns.
 
EVH said:
This is why it is broken:

  • Dr X converts a house in to a GP practice at a cost of ~£50,000
  • Dr X sells the practice to Dr Y (his brother) for a cost of £250,000
  • Dr X rents the practice from his brother at a cost of £3000 pcm
  • Dr X claims the rent + utility costs from the health board
Dr Y is £250,000 richer and Dr X claims as much rent from his brother as he wants, to make back the £50,000 (on the basis that he'll get it back from the health board anyway). The health board also pay his wages.

This is not directed at GPs at all, but you have to wonder why health boards don't clamp down on this sort of loophole :confused:
Click to expand...


In your example Dr Y is £250,000 poorer. . ..
 
On a side note though never been to a GP in an old house before.

huge new medical centre just been built in our town for gps practices though to replace the old one.
 
Tefal said:
On a side note though never been to a GP in an old house before.

huge new medical centre just been built in our town for gps practices though to replace the old one.
Click to expand...

This is increasingly more common. More and more practices are having purpose built replacements.

Granted some GPs do still exist in old houses, but the number is decreasing.

Tefal said:
In your example Dr Y is £250,000 poorer. . ..
Click to expand...

Well no, because Dr Y has purchased a property to let out and is now receiving a guaranteed rent for time eternal. Not much danger of the NHS defaulting on the payment ! and I'd venture the Drs surgery is very unlikely to move out. However due to the above, Id wager the amount of expenditure on properties like this is very small when compared with the overall running costs of the NHS GP infrastructure.
 
Last edited:
Not the way I see it

Dr X is up 200,000 and still has his surgery as the NHS is paying the rent.
Dr Y is down 250,000 but has made a property investment in the process and now gets a nice income from his investment in the form of one of the best tennents he could hope to have and a guaranteed income.
 
Fears grow over 'land grab' of NHS by private suppliers

A new list of approved suppliers to the NHS has heightened fears of a multi-billion pound land grab by a handful of corporations.

Competition for contracts to supply support services to the GP-led commissioning groups will be dominated by management consultancies, outsourcing giant Capita, and the US health insurer UnitedHealth. NHS England insists that the companies bidding for the support contracts will supply a range of back office functions, cutting procurement times and allowing doctors to focus on how best to spend their £70bn share of the NHS budget.

David Cameron has said the plan “is to put the power in the hands of local doctors so that they make decisions on behalf of patients based on what is good for health care in their local area”.

But groups opposed to the further privatisation of the NHS claim the reality is that the scope of the private firms is being dramatically expanded so that they will be allowed to provide services that, until now, have been undertaken by the NHS. They say that the move will end up costing taxpayers more and result in conflicts of interest as a number of the private firms are also advising the GPs’ commissioning groups.

NHS England has rejected these claims.

Four companies dominate the list of approved suppliers published last week. Capita, KPMG, PwC and UnitedHealth, the previous employer of NHS CEO, Simon Stevens, are now listed as suppliers to six of the nine regional consortiums set up to help GPs’ commissioning groups procure services. Ernst and Young is a supplier to four consortiums while McKinsey has been named as a supplier to five. All are members of the Commissioning Support Industry Group, which is a low-profile body that affords them regular access to the senior NHS officials overseeing the creation of the new market in commissioning services.
Click to expand...

Capita, KPMG, McKinsey and PwC - that's some list of fail right there. Shocking that this can be going on while general election campaigning is in full swing :mad:
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...of-private-healthcare-in-the-uk-10223112.html

A firm run by the Tories’ election chief, Lynton Crosby, devised a plan to lobby David Cameron to expand the role of private healthcare in the UK.

A strategy paper, drawn up by Mr Crosby’s firm CTF Partners and seen by The Independent, proposed targeting key government figures, including the Prime Minister, to enhance the “size, acceptability and profitability of the private healthcare market”. It also stated that “insufficient public funds” were a strategic “opportunity” for private healthcare firms. It added the campaign’s long-term strategy should be “achieving decision-maker recognition that health investment in the UK can only grow by expanding the role and contribution made by the private sector”.
Click to expand...
 
OldCoals said:
And? Labour have made an election pledge to allow private companies to profit from the NHS!
Click to expand...

But is allowing private companies to profit the lesser of two evils if it costs more to keep the work 'in-house' due to inefficiencies (assuming the service provided is the same)?
I know allowing private companies to provide services for the NHS risks abuse, but the NHS is hardly the pinnacle of cost efficiency!
 
Fr0dders said:
Not the way I see it

Dr X is up 200,000 and still has his surgery as the NHS is paying the rent.
Dr Y is down 250,000 but has made a property investment in the process and now gets a nice income from his investment in the form of one of the best tennents he could hope to have and a guaranteed income.
Click to expand...

but hes not up 250,00 lol
 
alx said:
But is allowing private companies to profit the lesser of two evils if it costs more to keep the work 'in-house' due to inefficiencies (assuming the service provided is the same)?
I know allowing private companies to provide services for the NHS risks abuse, but the NHS is hardly the pinnacle of cost efficiency!
Click to expand...

"Privatisation is bad" until it suits us.
 
alx said:
but the NHS is hardly the pinnacle of cost efficiency!
Click to expand...

That would be such a great point if all the metrics showed that compared to other health services it is. Should have checked that shouldn't you really because now all you've done is amply demonstrate how you haven't got the foggiest!
 
Just found this tidbit from last week, 40% of new contracts now go to private providers.

Profit-driven firms have been winning far more NHS contracts than ministers admit and privatisation has increased significantly under the coalition government, the latest evidence shows.

Two new sets of figures, detailing who is being awarded contracts to provide NHS clinical services, both challenge the government’s claim that only 6% of the service’s budget goes to private firms.

Contracts monitored by the NHS Support Federation campaign group show that private firms won £3.54bn of £9.628bn worth of deals awarded in England last year – a win rate of 36.8%.
Click to expand...

Far more NHS contracts going to private firms than ministers admit, figures show
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom