Is our NHS already lost

Casdon

Glorianny

The providers on the map are all being given NHS money, regardless of what service they are offering. That is public money going into private pockets. It's also obvious that the only way to provide the service and to show a dividend for share holders must be to cut something. In many cases it will be the pay of poorer workers and the provision of things like cleaning.
Any services that it is impossible to make money on will be abandoned. The NHS will be left with those services.
As for MPs any involvement with private health care providers is a conflict of interests.

You don’t understand how the NHS has, and will continue to provide services Glorianny, so you are making statements which imply that private care is always bad. The logical conclusion to your premise is that the NHS should offer everything people want regardless of the clinical need for it.

A lot of the units on this map provide specialist services. The map would have more credibility if it showed the services which were previously provided by the NHS but have now been contracted out.

To answer your original question -No, the NHS is not already lost, because there aren’t many services in that category at the moment. To qualify my response I must say I worked in a senior role in the NHS for over forty years, and I strongly believe in it - what I don’t believe in is inaccurate scaremongering.

Thanks for your comments Casdon the map and the information came from an organisation called "Everydoctor" it is composed of doctors currently working in the NHS who are committed to it, and worried about what is happening.
I can see no reason why they would post "inaccurate scaremongering" and their NHS experience is more recent than yours.
www.everydoctor.org.uk/

They have an agenda Glorianny. They are a doctor led campaign organisation, quite willing to present information in the way which will suck in people who want to believe them.

Casdon

They have an agenda Glorianny. They are a doctor led campaign organisation, quite willing to present information in the way which will suck in people who want to believe them.

Of course they have an agenda! They want to save our NHS and are highlighting how public money is being spent. The evidence is there. If you choose not to believe it that is up to you, but it isn't accurate to claim you have some sort of superior knowledge when you simply have a different opinion.

Casdon

They have an agenda Glorianny. They are a doctor led campaign organisation, quite willing to present information in the way which will suck in people who want to believe them.

Of course they have an agenda, as do many in this country I believe. A free at point of delivery, efficient and caring NHS, which is available to all, regardless of income, and importantly is properly funded.

As indeed it was, and the envy of the world, until our politicians were seduced some years back by overblown free market solutions to everything, and neo-liberalism reigned supreme.

It is a matter of political ideological choice.
We are not too poor to achieve a decent NHS.

If the contracting out of services leads to greater efficiency that can only be a good thing. Private enterprise understands the need to be cost effective and provide what the client needs far better than the public sector. I am more than happy that my local hospital has a contract with a specialist company to provide vital scanning services at no cost to the patient.

Glorianny

Casdon

They have an agenda Glorianny. They are a doctor led campaign organisation, quite willing to present information in the way which will suck in people who want to believe them.

Of course they have an agenda! They want to save our NHS and are highlighting how public money is being spent. The evidence is there. If you choose not to believe it that is up to you, but it isn't accurate to claim you have some sort of superior knowledge when you simply have a different opinion.

I have a lot more knowledge than you do about this Glorianny.
As I said earlier, the information presented is very selective. I believe in an NHS that is free at the point of delivery, absolutely. If you spoke to 90% of NHS staff however they would say that the NHS cannot do everything, and that contracting out some elements of service is the only way core services can be protected. That is particularly true for psychiatry, and specialist services.

My daughter's op on Friday is being done by an NHS contracted surgeon in a private hospital as there are not enough theatres in the local NHS hospitals to get through the enormous waiting lists. They have the surgeons and some of the beds but not the theatre time.

NHS finance is hugely complex & I don't profess to understand it but - private companies tend to treat the more straightforward patients needing knee replacements and heart bypasses & other common interventions. If the patient is NHS funded, & there is a long waiting list, the less complex patients may be offered treatment at a private hospital. This is partly for safety - no private hosital in my area has an intensive care if there were post-op problems - & also means the hospital stay is shorter than average at private,(more healthy caseload) thus they can get the patient treated for the NHS tariff for that operation, even with the extra "private" frills.
Another point - not sure if it's on thread - is that, yes in the 70s -80s things seemed to tick along OK (although the waiting lists could be 2-3 years for hip replacements) but it's not just politics that has made financing NHS so difficult. Gene therapy is available now at our (regional centre) children's hospital for one particular condition and that treatment costs about £1 million for the one infusion (I think this is with a negotiated discount from the drug company).There are many other effective drug treatments that also are inherently expensive to produce. Cortisone & penillin G were as cheap as chips back in the day. It is incredible that we can offer these treatments, but they represent a significant added financial burden on today's NHS. & I can't imagine they would be covered by most private health insurances,

From an NHS customer’s point of view, my friend is having both cataracts operated on in 10 days time at one of these sites, within 6 weeks after their consultant’s appointment. I’d call that excellent, their quality of life will be swiftly and efficiently improved.

The companies providing these services are not in it to provide good care, their primary objective is paying dividends to their share holders

I have just looked at some of the companies on the map and they are not-for-profit organisations providing services to the NHS. They may be more efficient therefore a cost-effective way of providing straightforward procedures which will be free of charge to NHS patients.
It may well be a cheaper way of providing these services than the PFIs were but, of course, hospital trusts are still paying back £millions to private firms just in interest.

Jaxjacky

From an NHS customer’s point of view, my friend is having both cataracts operated on in 10 days time at one of these sites, within 6 weeks after their consultant’s appointment. I’d call that excellent, their quality of life will be swiftly and efficiently improved.

I sincerely hope they don't do them both at the same time. Not a good idea.

I think most agree that this thread is mischievous and the map highly misleading.

Callistemon21

Jaxjacky

Three near me, all providing specialist services under contract to the NHS, so Gloriannay for NHS clients.

A very misleading OP.

Many years ago wen we had a Labour Government, my DD was sent to a private hospital by the NHS which seemed to be a fairly routine thing to do then.
Excellent service and free at the point of delivery.

As long as services remain free to the patient some systems are more efficient when run privately.

Still happens. My OH was sent to a private hospital in March for an operation by the NHS. I know lots of people this has happened to.

Of course private hospitals have been involved in NHS care for some time, but there is no doubt that is increasing. So what we are about to see is a two layer service with the areas that private healthcare has no interest in being steadily run down. That may be already happening. The main area private healthcare have absolutely no interest in, and which they still use when necessary is A&E. The service provided there is steadily deteriorating. It is difficult to see how the two events can't possible be linked.

So privatising elderly care has not been a huge success, in fact an abject failure and should never have been done. It is simply not possible to make a profit from elderly and chronically sick people.

When NHS services were starting to be contracted out I was working in the NHS and one of the first to go was hospital cleaning services, which was sooooo much cheaper than in house. I’ll say no more.

Let’s not forget how many millions the government is spending on private hospitals which may be a quick fix for now, but not a long term solution to fund better facilities in the NHS. PFI comes to mind.

We are taking a very short sighted view if we are happy to see so many services contracted out to private companies. The US insurance companies and big pharma must be rubbing their hands with glee.

If you are happy with dental services as they are, then you may not mind health service transfer from public to private. As I previously mentioned it was a political ideological choice, to run down the NHS, not a necessity.

Glorianny

Of course private hospitals have been involved in NHS care for some time, but there is no doubt that is increasing. So what we are about to see is a two layer service with the areas that private healthcare has no interest in being steadily run down. That may be already happening. The main area private healthcare have absolutely no interest in, and which they still use when necessary is A&E. The service provided there is steadily deteriorating. It is difficult to see how the two events can't possible be linked.

Do you think some staff are deliberately doing this? I know someone who went twice to M.I. at a large hospital after an accident - despite there being no other patients there when he went the 2nd time, he was given short shrift by the same doctor.
Now he has to go privately as an urgent case otherwise the consequences could be very serious indeed.

Germanshepherdsmum

If the contracting out of services leads to greater efficiency that can only be a good thing. Private enterprise understands the need to be cost effective and provide what the client needs far better than the public sector. I am more than happy that my local hospital has a contract with a specialist company to provide vital scanning services at no cost to the patient.

In some ways, I agree. It depends on the Agenda and end goal.

This already happened under Labour- but the aim was to improve costings and efficiency- NOT to deliberately destroy the NHS to privatise it to fill their own pockets.

Massive difference.

This already happened under Labour- but the aim was to improve costings and efficiency- NOT to deliberately destroy the NHS to privatise it to fill their own pockets.

You appear to have forgotten that Cherie Blair was a partner in starting a firm which was trying to set up a chain of private healthcare providers with clinics in supermarkets
It went into liquidation still owing £millions.

Was Cherie Blair a Governement Minister, or even an MP?

And in the grand scale of things, fairly irrelevant.

Anyone who thinks that the Labour Party is against privatisation in the NHS needs to do more research.

www.yournhsneedsyou.com/timeline
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-nhs-pledge-privatisation-b2123849.html

The fact remains that the NHS is a huge organisation, it is cumbersome and inefficient in parts and does require reform.
How that is brought about is a matter for (very heated) debate.
Just throwing more money at it is not really the answer.

Callistemon21

Anyone who thinks that the Labour Party is against privatisation in the NHS needs to do more research.

www.yournhsneedsyou.com/timeline
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-nhs-pledge-privatisation-b2123849.html

The fact remains that the NHS is a huge organisation, it is cumbersome and inefficient in parts and does require reform.
How that is brought about is a matter for (very heated) debate.
Just throwing more money at it is not really the answer.

Totally agree.

Since it’s inception medicine and surgery has advanced beyond most of our imaginations and continues to do so. It is now performing what would have been considered miracles at its inception, at great cost with better trained/experienced providers.

As long as it remains free at the point of delivery does it matter if the service provider is employed direct from NHS budget or contracted out?

Fleurpepper

Was Cherie Blair a Governement Minister, or even an MP?

And in the grand scale of things, fairly irrelevant.

No, not at all irrelevant!
Are you saying that all the talk of "cronies" benefiting from Government policies is relevant when applied to some politicians but not to those of other parties?
Not that I would apply the word crony to Cherie Blair, she is the wife of a then Labour Prime Minister.

We need to look at other countries where healthcare does appear to be more efficient now and see how it is funded and run.
It is no good to keep saying "This is our precious NHS, we cannot change things".
It can remain our precious NHS, free at the point of prompt delivery to all in need but, unless the whole structure is looked at objectively and dispassionately, it will collapse and disappear.

It was said on another thread that the cost of the coronation would fund the NHS for five hours. That puts things into perspective. To maintain the NHS on the basis that it was originally set up is financially impossible. People are living much longer and with increased age come medical problems for most. Old people will have ceased to contribute significantly to ‘the pot’ many years previously, leaving the financial burden of their medical care to the state unless they can afford private care. We also now see people going to A&E with minor and alcohol- and drug-induced problems. Many don’t even bother to register with a GP but go to A&E if they need medical advice. How can the NHS possibly, in these changed circumstances, provide free care for all when they need it? They simply can’t, and we need to accept that practices have to adapt to reflect the reality of the situation,

We need to look at other countries where healthcare does appear to be more efficient now and see how it is funded and run

We do have Gransnetters who live in other countries and their views on how healthcare is run in their countries are always welcome and would be interesting as comparison.

The NHS has had many many reforms and each one seems to be mainly regressive. Our system was widely respected as the best, most efficient and value for money in the world until about 12 years ago.

I know however that the rot did start to creep in before then, and I have no illusions Callistemon that the Labour Party is against privatisation, which is what concerns me.