Nhs Trust Put Into Administration

[homeless]

its getting pretty bad when, 200k waged super managers cant even balance the books.

i bet the even picked up bonuses along the way.

South London Healthcare NHS Trust put into administration

South London Healthcare NHS Trust is to be put into administration after it ran into financial trouble, the government has announced. Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has appointed a trust special administrator to go into the trust. Mr Lansley said: "I have decided it is in the interests of the health service and, in particular, of the patients the trust serves." The trust was only created in 2009 and is millions of pounds in debt.

[Injin]

its getting pretty bad when, 200k waged super managers cant even balance the books.

i bet the even picked up bonuses along the way.

South London Healthcare NHS Trust put into administration

South London Healthcare NHS Trust is to be put into administration after it ran into financial trouble, the government has announced. Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has appointed a trust special administrator to go into the trust. Mr Lansley said: "I have decided it is in the interests of the health service and, in particular, of the patients the trust serves." The trust was only created in 2009 and is millions of pounds in debt.

Job done then.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18812193

Of course, the patients must come first.

[Blue Peter]

its getting pretty bad when, 200k waged super managers cant even balance the books.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys. When will the public sector learn, eh!?

Peter.

[Patfig]

its getting pretty bad when, 200k waged super managers cant even balance the books.

i bet the even picked up bonuses along the way.

South London Healthcare NHS Trust put into administration

South London Healthcare NHS Trust is to be put into administration after it ran into financial trouble, the government has announced. Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has appointed a trust special administrator to go into the trust. Mr Lansley said: "I have decided it is in the interests of the health service and, in particular, of the patients the trust serves." The trust was only created in 2009 and is millions of pounds in debt.

That'll save a packet

[homeless]

perhaps this strategy will be used by the government to destroy the unionised state built up by labour.

its very hard to sack people and reduce waste when you have wasters in charge to begin with. what is needed is a complete restart. and perhaps administration is going to be used to get rid of debt and poor management.

its a strategy that might work.

[fluffy666]

Of course, the PFI payments patients must come first.

Fixed.

[interestrateripoff]

So the taxpayer makes good 100% of the pfi debt.

Private finance all of the profit none of the risk.

[THE BALD MAN]

perhaps this strategy will be used by the government to destroy the unionised state built up by labour.

its very hard to sack people and reduce waste when you have wasters in charge to begin with. what is needed is a complete restart. and perhaps administration is going to be used to get rid of debt and poor management.

its a strategy that might work.

Its called zero based budgeting!

[THE BALD MAN]

Pay peanuts, get monkeys. When will the public sector learn, eh!?

Peter.

Give pigs a trough and they will eat from it!

[Democorruptcy]

So the taxpayer makes good 100% of the pfi debt.

Private finance all of the profit none of the risk.

At least we have enough left in the kitty to pay for old age care.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Democorruptcy

[crash2006]

So the taxpayer makes good 100% of the pfi debt.

Private finance all of the profit none of the risk.

A trusted source said it was due to PFI, they were getting very little in return for the amount of money that was going out, over 50% of it budget was going to service its debt, which is why patients begun to suffer poor care, and that this is happening around the country.

[koala_bear]

A trusted source said it was due to PFI, they were getting very little in return for the amount of money that was going out, over 50% of it budget was going to service its debt, which is why patients begun to suffer poor care, and that this is happening around the country.

+1 this is just the first of many NHS PFI projects that are going to hit the wall.

[PopGun]

+1 this is just the first of many NHS PFI projects that are going to hit the wall.

Don't worry, Serco et all are on stand by to save the day....

[@contradevian]

Give pigs a trough and they will eat from it!

The problem is, they will even eat the trough!

[tinker]

In other news...

More PFI in Liverpool (what could possibly go wrong?)

Royal Liverpool Hospital: Date for new building confirmed

Work on the hospital will begin next spring

//

Building work is to start next spring on Liverpool's new £450m hospital, the government has said.

//

The project, which will be funded under a Private Finance Initiative (PFI), is due to be completed by December 2016.

//

The plans had been dogged by a legal challenge from campaigners who claimed the PFI scheme was financially flawed.

[Mr. Miyagi]

In other news...

More PFI in Liverpool (what could possibly go wrong?)

Apparently the government can borrow @ 1%.......

[THE BALD MAN]

+1 this is just the first of many NHS PFI projects that are going to hit the wall.

PFI = NU LABOUR EQUIVALENT OF ENRON. Not just NHS contracts awarded to cronies ....

The NuLabour policy Excess pay for management plus PFI seems to be hitting the wall...

[Traktion]

If they were a consumer cooperative, owned collectively by the people who used the service, surely this sort of thing would be less likely to happen?

Firstly, there would be market forces at work. The hospital would have to appeal to subscribers, in order to gain funding, instead of just putting a cap in hand to the state.

Secondly, those subscribing to the service would have a controlling share in the company and could influence how it is run (how many managers, who is paid what, what medication is prioritised etc). In other words, a far more democratic system than just relying on the muppets 'chosen' once every 4 years.

The model used in the OP link seems to be the worst of all worlds. Annoyingly, we only seem to be told about the false dichotomy of a state run or private PLC service too.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Traktion

[uro_who]

If they were a consumer cooperative, owned collectively by the people who used the service, surely this sort of thing would be less likely to happen?

Firstly, there would be market forces at work. The hospital would have to appeal to subscribers, in order to gain funding, instead of just putting a cap in hand to the state.

Secondly, those subscribing to the service would have a controlling share in the company and could influence how it is run (how many managers, who is paid what, what medication is prioritised etc). In other words, a far more democratic system than just relying on the muppets 'chosen' once every 4 years.

The model used in the OP link seems to be the worst of all worlds. Annoyingly, we only seem to be told about the false dichotomy of a state run or private PLC service too.

That's how the better hospitals used to work, for the wealthy, the poor had to go to charity hospitals often evolved from the poor house and run on donations. One of the reasons for the NHS was to provide equity of care for all.

You have ingeniously re-invented the failed model of 59 years ago!

Edited July 12, 2012 by uro_who

[homeless]

That's how the better hospitals used to work, for the wealthy, the poor had to go to charity hospitals often evolved from the poor house and run on donations. One of the reasons for the NHS was to provide equity of care for all.

You have ingeniously re-invented the failed model of 59 years ago!

well what do you suggest?

[Traktion]

That's how the better hospitals used to work, for the wealthy, the poor had to go to charity hospitals often evolved from the poor house and run on donations. One of the reasons for the NHS was to provide equity of care for all.

You have ingeniously re-invented the failed model of 59 years ago!

Are you suggesting that if you allow people to have a say in how their hospital is run, they will be less charitable than when they don't?

EDIT: To clarify, if you believe in democracy, you should allow people to decide how much charity their (commonly owned) hospital should give.

P.S. Do you have a link for your assertion that many hospitals were cooperatives before the NHS? I'd like to read about it, as it's not something I have heard of.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Traktion

[Traktion]

I found this good link: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/2011/Features/WTVM052512.htm

State intervention in any aspect of our lives is an emotive topic, pitting notions of welfare state, nanny state and individual autonomy against each other. Not surprisingly the issue of whether or not to have a National Health Service (NHS) was hotly contested - between and within political parties - prior to its foundation in 1948.

The NHS was the cornerstone of the new welfare state, which was introduced by Labour's first ever majority government from 1945 to give every British citizen lifelong protection against unemployment and ill-health. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that support for a government-run health service was unanimous within both the national Labour Party and the wider labour movement generally. Certainly, that tends to be the view of historians.

The reality, as Professor Barry Doyle at the University of Huddersfield has been discovering, is rather more complex. He has been exploring labour attitudes to hospital provision in the interwar years in three English cities: Leeds, Middlesbrough and Sheffield. With a Wellcome Trust Research Leave Award, he will be writing up his findings in a book to be published by Pickering and Chatto.

His research suggests that while the national Labour Party in Parliament may have been as one on the matter of state hospital provision, within the wider labour movement (the unions, local councils and cooperatives) opinion was far more divided.

Before the NHS, people with low incomes went to hospitals provided by charities or by the government. The latter were either Poor Law hospitals or municipal institutions run by local councils. The wealthier classes tended to eschew the government hospital wards and instead paid for care in private nursing homes, or (later on) in private hospital wings.

From the 1870s onwards, another form of hospital provision sprang up, with its roots in the mutualist tradition, which flourished in some industrial towns from the middle of the 19th century. Often, with the encouragement of their employers, unions and liberal-minded politicians of the day, workers formed cooperatives, friendly societies and other mutual organisations to protect themselves and their families in case of high food prices, illness, unemployment or death.

Workers also began to pay into hospital contributory schemes, such as Workpeople's Hospital Fund in Leeds and the later 'Penny in the Pound' scheme in Sheffield. By paying a penny out of every pound of their wages into the scheme, as its name suggests, they could guarantee medical care in the hospital supported by the scheme for themselves and their families. Many of these voluntary-sector hospitals, such as Leeds General Infirmary, are the big-name teaching hospitals of today.

"We have a tendency to think of hospitals before the NHS as either being charities, run by people like you have on 'Casualty 1909'," says Professor Doyle, "or Poor Law hospitals where you were poorly treated and kept in terrible conditions. Either way you're being made to grovel, or you're being made to grovel. Whereas in fact, people were showing an awful lot of control, particularly in the north of England, over making provision for themselves. Right up until the 1940s, where you find radical liberals talking about the 'right' of people to have these things for themselves. They're not going to be run by the state, or given by charity; they're going to do it for themselves."

He believes membership of these schemes often led to a degree of involvement in the welfare of the hospital that went beyond mere membership of an insurance scheme. "People from the schemes helped run the hospitals. They were on the hospital boards and helped raise money for the hospital." In the 1930s he says around 50 000 people went every year to the annual Leeds Gala, where they could watch or take part in running events and hot-air balloon rides, and visit stalls and sideshows. "One of the main reasons people went was to raise money for the hospital. So there's a close relationship between being part of the community, and being part of the voluntary scheme, and supporting the hospital. It united the three points of the triangle: patient, scheme and hospital."

Professor Doyle has been investigating whether, in light of the success of these voluntary hospitals, there was resistance to their appropriation by a state-owned NHS within the wider labour movement: the trade unions, local Labour councillors, mutualist cooperatives - as well as more traditional voluntarists from the Liberal and Conservative parties.

...

Moses Humberstone, the secretary of the Sheffield Trades and Labour Council (the local unions federation) and Labour Lord Mayor, was a leading advocate for Sheffield's voluntary scheme. He lauded it as "a great humanitarian effort" because it linked the mutualist, industrial and political wings of the labour movement. As a result, says Professor Doyle, by the end of the 1930s Sheffield had one of the most efficient, complex and democratic hospital systems in England, almost seamlessly integrating hospital services, finances and expertise.

I was aware of friendly societies and mutualism in a broader sense, but I hadn't heard of cooperative hospitals. I'd like to read more about it, as from the above, they sounded like they worked rather well - 1% of your income to look after you and your family, sounds like a rather good deal, if the care was as good as suggested. It sounds like far from a 'failed' model.

[Lagarde's Drift]

Except that 1% will be nowhere near enough. Try 400% for starters.

[Bloo Loo]

Except that 1% will be nowhere near enough. Try 400% for starters.

indeed, £450million for a hospital...but what is going to be the total cost....just for putting it there...if mortgages are anything to go by, then thats going to be a billion or so....plus...£150 for a lightbulb, £1500 for a socket......