Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
kjw

New Government Policy For The Nhs Could Allow Doctors And Nurses To ‘Own’ Hospitals

Recommended Posts

Ministers are drawing up plans to allow doctors and nurses to own and run the hospitals they work in as part of a radical blueprint to change the way the NHS is run.

Under proposals to be floated tomorrow, staff could be able to take over hospitals and other NHS responsibilities and run them as new mutual companies in the style of the department store chain John Lewis.

Staff would then become “shareholders” in the new company with the power to dismiss the chief executive and board members as well as set policy and targets for the new organisation.

Ministers are not ruling out the possibility that staff could even be given a financial stake in the organisations for which they work – sharing bonuses if their hospital makes a profit on NHS work. The new policy comes after an independent review, led by the independent think-tank the King’s Fund, found what it described as “compelling evidence” that NHS organisations with high levels of staff engagement delivered better quality care.

By contrast, hospitals like the one at the centre of the Mid Staffordshire scandal had low levels of staff engagement.


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/new-government-policy-for-the-nhs-could-allow-doctors-and-nurses-to-own-hospitals-9606023.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to introduce the profit incentive in area's lacking a free market has worked out so well with railways...

Horrific idea isn't it?

Sadly it's the only one this government are capable of (and the corporations are lobbying hard for it I'm sure).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be better to have them 'owned' by their customers?

Oh, hang on - they already are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ministers are drawing up plans to allow doctors and nurses to own and run the hospitals they work in as part of a radical blueprint to change the way the NHS is run.

Under proposals to be floated tomorrow, staff could be able to take over hospitals and other NHS responsibilities and run them as new mutual companies in the style of the department store chain John Lewis.

Staff would then become “shareholders” in the new company with the power to dismiss the chief executive and board members as well as set policy and targets for the new organisation.

Ministers are not ruling out the possibility that staff could even be given a financial stake in the organisations for which they work – sharing bonuses if their hospital makes a profit on NHS work. The new policy comes after an independent review, led by the independent think-tank the King’s Fund, found what it described as “compelling evidence” that NHS organisations with high levels of staff engagement delivered better quality care.

By contrast, hospitals like the one at the centre of the Mid Staffordshire scandal had low levels of staff engagement.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/new-government-policy-for-the-nhs-could-allow-doctors-and-nurses-to-own-hospitals-9606023.html

Which part of the Hippocratic Oath is that mentioned in?

Go long undertakers and crematoriums.... it will be a tough choice.... spend money on expensive life saving drugs/operations or have a larger bonus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to introduce the profit incentive in area's lacking a free market has worked out so well with railways...

And education! :blink: And it turned water and energy companies French, or German! And rubbish too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHS crowded out several mutual hospitals which were established prior to tax funded hospitals.

Moreover, said mutual hospitals were cheap and funded/used by people of the working class up.

Unfortunately, they couldn't out compete alternatives funded by extortion. Creating some sort of half way solution as suggested in the op isn't going far enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would quite like a real proper private healthcare option. With real competition and no dodgy US style insurance scam attached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could do the same with schools?

And councils?

They should, but only as proper mutuals which have to actually fund themselves too.

Why not have schools running themselves as cooperatives, where the parents and teachers define wages, curriculum, class sizes, charitable subsidies, subscription costs and so forth? How better to optimise teaching and give more ownership to everyone involved?

Government agencies like these get stuck in stasis. They don't change as there is little incentive to. Why cut staff and modernise, when you can strike without the parents able to do a damn thing about it? Hell, why even care as a parent, as you don't pay any of them directly anyway.

Mutuals and cooperatives are mini democracies in their own right, but with optional membership. Voluntarism at it's best, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be better to have them 'owned' by their customers?

Oh, hang on - they already are.

Interesting terminology that. I know a consultant who insists on calling all his patients customers. Says it keeps him focused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that article repeats the Circle press release that they have "transformed" Hinchingbrooke hospital by bringing in private sector management expertise.

They state that they are almost breaking even and that is supposed to be a success.

As far as I can see:

They made a loss again this year and are now only a few hundred thousand pounds away from a £5m total loss which is the point where they can walk away or where the government can cancel the contract.

They have indeed reduced losses, they've done this by stopping offering the non-profitable treatments. However these treatments are still required so people are transferred to other NHS hospitals and the losses are shifted on to the rest of the system.

They spend lots of money advertising their services on local radio, effectively trying to poach patients away from other NHS facilities. When my wife was expecting our second child she received marketing from them about having the baby there instead of in Cambridge. How does that help the NHS? As my wife had a complex pregnancy and needed weeks in hospital she wouldn't have been able to go there anyway as they don't have the expertise. So again another part of the NHS picked up the cost whilst the Circle hospital shifted on the patient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't get this, most of the people I know who work in the NHS (half my family) do so because they actually like caring for others; if I go into a rant how my company wastes x amount of money they don't care one bit. They don't care about finances, they care more about the service to the patient.

Also, for John Lewis, and I work with them quite a bit (but not for them), you can see they all have the same agenda and are focussed to cut waste/drive profit. It's a running joke how many people we can get to call them when their bonus data is released, and how many don't answer!

We all know if there was a profit share, it would be abused, and people would just end up focused on that, rather than care for the end patient which cannot easily be quantified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that article repeats the Circle press release that they have "transformed" Hinchingbrooke hospital by bringing in private sector management expertise.

They state that they are almost breaking even and that is supposed to be a success.

As far as I can see:

They made a loss again this year and are now only a few hundred thousand pounds away from a £5m total loss which is the point where they can walk away or where the government can cancel the contract.

They have indeed reduced losses, they've done this by stopping offering the non-profitable treatments. However these treatments are still required so people are transferred to other NHS hospitals and the losses are shifted on to the rest of the system.

They spend lots of money advertising their services on local radio, effectively trying to poach patients away from other NHS facilities. When my wife was expecting our second child she received marketing from them about having the baby there instead of in Cambridge. How does that help the NHS? As my wife had a complex pregnancy and needed weeks in hospital she wouldn't have been able to go there anyway as they don't have the expertise. So again another part of the NHS picked up the cost whilst the Circle hospital shifted on the patient.

And today Circle have pulled out of running Hinchingbrooke Hospital as they were losing too much money.

So it is now back to being an NHS run hospital.

How many of these type of things must happen before "private good, public bad" types admit outsourcing doesn't work.

I want private companies to deliver goods/services where competition drives improvements and public organisations to deliver services that work best in a monopoly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this related to TTIP / other trade agreement - back door to allow US medical system to hijack services outside of the US, having picked off all the easy gains in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hands OFF, maggots!

We all own the NHS already.

Plus I want back the Railway, Mail, Telecoms, Parking, Buses, Airways, Oil, Gas, Electric, Water... and all the other assets that were shamefully sold off this country (who voted for that?).

Edit: a bigger list, plus I forgot something else we want back, our pretend Democratic Government that's been captured / sold out to the corporations and VIs. The country wants a new war or some emergency legislation on surveillance, no problem 24hrs. Financial regulation, phucking years if ever.

Edited by DarkHorseWaits-NoMore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could do the same with schools?

And councils?

And children- the parents become stakeholders in the kids future with an option to claim some of their future earnings if the kid makes good? Of course they would bear the costs if the kid turned out to be a loser.

It would have the additional benefit that less promising fetus's would be aborted to avoid possible future losses thus improving the overall human stock.

What better way to ensure parental love than to monetize positive parenting? This should be in the Tory manifesto- a sure vote winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And children- the parents become stakeholders in the kids future with an option to claim some of their future earnings if the kid makes good? Of course they would bear the costs if the kid turned out to be a loser.

It would have the additional benefit that less promising fetus's would be aborted to avoid possible future losses thus improving the overall human stock.

What better way to ensure parental love than to monetize positive parenting? This should be in the Tory manifesto- a sure vote winner.

Like this? Who needs parents.

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21579490-helping-youngsters-sell-stakes-their-future-start-me-up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's nationalise everything!

Let's face it everyone envies the NHS, despite the fact that almost no other country operates their free health service as a national monopoly, oh no it's because they envy us so much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the idea of docs and nurses running the institution but NOT with any financial incentive from notional surpluses. Trouble is they would have to operate within the quasi market of the NHS system and Whitehall micro management which virtually ties your hands as a healthcare provider trying to balance complex services and stakeholders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all own the NHS already.

The People owned all the work camps in Siberia as well.

The notion that "we" own that stuff is laughable. The state is not "we" in any reasonable sense.

Edited by EUBanana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And children- the parents become stakeholders in the kids future with an option to claim some of their future earnings if the kid makes good? Of course they would bear the costs if the kid turned out to be a loser.

It would have the additional benefit that less promising fetus's would be aborted to avoid possible future losses thus improving the overall human stock.

What better way to ensure parental love than to monetize positive parenting? This should be in the Tory manifesto- a sure vote winner.

You can't reasonably enter into contract with a child. You can invest in them out of love though, of course. That is also pretty much the default position for normal people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The People owned all the work camps in Siberia as well.

The notion that "we" own that stuff is laughable. The state is not "we" in any reasonable sense.

It is a strange notion. if someone steals money from you and then lets you share what they spent it on, it doesn't mean you both own it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which part of the Hippocratic Oath is that mentioned in?

Go long undertakers and crematoriums.... it will be a tough choice.... spend money on expensive life saving drugs/operations or have a larger bonus.

They'll be torn between claiming the bounty for diagnosing an illness or on the other hand going for the bonus. It'll be a real juggling act between the bounty plus pharma pill prescribing bonus etc and other alternatives.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't reasonably enter into contract with a child. You can invest in them out of love though, of course. That is also pretty much the default position for normal people.

Love has no value in a free market system- it's impervious to the price discovery mechanism. The same applies to such abstractions like integrity, public service and compassion- in a free market driven society such things have- literally- no value because they cannot be assigned a value in cash terms.

Far better to make parents, medical staff ect into 'stakeholders' so that their 'investment' in child rearing or medical care can be properly measured and rewarded.

the problem with the idea that all things can measured in terms of money is that money then becomes the end and not the means and somewhere along the line we lose something that might have been important but we can no longer recall what it was because it cannot be valued in the only metric we now recognize to be valid- cold hard cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.