Wednesday, June 26, 2013

NHS & Cars.

A: NHS & Monitor: Toyota & McKinsey

Dawn, anyone?

©Am Ang Zhang 2011
The new head of Monitor may indeed be too busy to note that quoting the car industry may not be the wisest thing to do.


Q125 Chair: Thank you very much for coming. I would like to open the questioning on the subject that is at the heart of a lot of the comment about the effect of the Government’s proposals on commissioning, and that is the effect of their proposals on the establishment of stable pathways of care around the system and the effect that competition-Any Willing Provider and these concepts that have been around for some years-has on the ability of a commissioner to put in place pathways of care, relationships between care providers, that provide optimum outcomes for patients as well as value for money. Can I start with that set of issues and perhaps go to Dr Bennett first?

Dr Bennett: Yes. I will start with two points. First of all, the fundamental goal of all this, of course, is about providing the best possible care for patients, and indeed specifically in Monitor’s case we will have a duty to promote and protect the interests of users of the system. In a sense, it would be a contradiction of what I think the Bill is aiming to do if we finished up with arrangements that did not enable commissioners to commission the services that were in the best interests of their patients.
More specifically, I know people are concerned that the further introduction of competition, or indeed Any Willing Provider, might make it impossible or very difficult to arrange for different providers to collaborate and provide the sort of integrated care that you are talking about. I don’t see why that should be, not least because of the starting point, but also because we see in lots of other sectors, lots of other markets where collaboration is needed in order to meet the needs of the end user or an intermediate user, that it works perfectly well.
I am very cautious about using examples from other sectors, lest I be immediately quoted as saying "Health care is just like X", which, of course, it is not. Health care is different. But one example which I was discussing with a colleague just the other day is the way the car industry works. You have very effective competition between the manufacturers of different cars but, in practice, when you are making a car you have all sorts of suppliers working together collaborating in order to produce the finished product. Indeed, you will sometimes finish up with providers who are working with more than one manufacturer. You may think it is a big step to go from there to health care but, in practice, if what you are talking about in a similar sort of way is multiple providers working together, collaborating- maybe a couple of different groups working in competition with each other but nevertheless providing the sort of integrated or long term care that is needed-then that should be entirely consistent with a degree of competition.

Toyota, one of the most successful motor car companies ran into major safety problems leading to recalls and litigations:

Toyota has, for the past few years, been expanding its business rapidly. Quite frankly, I fear the pace at which we have grown may have been too quick. I would like to point out here that Toyota's priority has traditionally been the following: First; Safety, Second; Quality, and Third; Volume. These priorities became confused, and we were not able to stop, think, and make improvements as much as we were able to before, and our basic stance to listen to customers' voices to make better products has weakened somewhat. We pursued growth over the speed at which we were able to develop our people and our organization, and we should sincerely be mindful of that. I regret that this has resulted in the safety issues described in the recalls we face today, and I am deeply sorry for any accidents that Toyota drivers have experienced. Especially, I would like to extend my condolences to the members of the Saylor family, for the accident in San Diego. I would like to send my prayers again, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.
                                 Akio Toyoda, the president and CEO of Toyota


But the whole thing may indeed be academic: see the following exchanges earlier in the same sitting:

End of a state provided National Health Service?

Q114 Chair: To the Commissioning Board and then there is the question of the-
Professor Corrigan: That is what I am unclear about in the Board. The Secretary of State talks about a mandate to the Commissioning Board. Whether that mandate means I then will answer a question about a particular locality within the year, again, force majeure, I don’t think he will have a choice. But that may not be the powers the Bill gives.
Nigel Edwards: He has no powers to intervene in individual consortium areas.
Chair: Are there any other issues here?

Q115 Rosie Cooper: Yes, if I may. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will no longer have a statutory duty to provide health services and will only have to act with a view to securing the provision of health services in relation to the Board. How accurate is it to see this as spelling the end of a state provided National Health Service?

Nigel EdwardsThat is precisely what it is, is it not? That is what it says. It is there in black and white. That is my reading of it as well. In fact, when every NHS hospital is a foundation trust, apart from the fact that the state would be a residual owner of roughly £36 billion of assets which belong to the taxpayer, there is no direct state control over the provision of health care except indirectly through the commissioning process. That is my reading of it.

Q116 Chair: Can I push on that because Rosie’s question was: "Is this the end of state provided health care?" The trusts are still owned by the state and they are delivering care in response to a tax funded budget that is accountable, through the process we have been discussing, to the commissioning boards.
Nigel Edwards: I was taking a narrower view of the definition. But you are absolutely right, yes.
Professor Paton: I am not trying to be smart but that expresses part of the theology of the purchaser-provider split, expressed in 1989 to 1991, which was suspended in culture but not in structure between 1997 and 2001 and then was gradually rolled out again in a new and indeed more radical form. It is just putting the top hat on that. That is what it is saying, but the practical reality will be exactly as the Chairman says. In other words, the reality is that public money is in the providers by one way or another and the theology may not be worth more than that proverbial bucket of spit when it comes to the-

McKinsey:

Tony Blair must indeed be very proud; his people are now on both sides, private health provider side and health regulator side of a Conservative government.


Ex-Blair: Patricia Hewitt: now with Cinven (Bupa Hospitals)

Dr David Bennett is the current head of MonitorHe is NOT a medical doctor.

But I do not want to give credit to Blair. According to The Independent it is McKinsey: The Jesuits of Capitalism.

“They are the modern buccaneers of the business world. They jet between cities, rack up huge expenses, and charge up to £6,000 a day to think the unthinkable for clients including big corporations and governments.

They are the star consultants of McKinsey, the √©lite global management consultancy. Their backgrounds are diverse - former SAS commandos, business people, aid workers - but they are drawn together by the distinct McKinsey culture. Known as "the Firm" or the "McKinsey Mafia", they are radical, zealous - and above all secretive.

But now, it seems, McKinsey is becoming the problem rather than the solution. After almost 80 years as the most prestigious name in the management consultancy world, these "Jesuits of capitalism"are under attack.

McKinsey stands accused of cronyism, greed and arrogance, as a result of associated scandals that stretch from the offices of Enron in Houston, Texas, to the corridors of 10 Downing Street.”

Links: 


Tribal: Spinwatch



Related:


B: NHS-Kaiser Permanente: A Class! Seriously!

Mom, they are not wearing clothes!

Hermitage Museum ©2008 Am Ang Zhang


Much money and resources must have been spent to study and emulate the best of Kaiser Permanente. I have followed Kaiser Permanente closely and have first hand discussion with Medical School friends that worked for Kaiser Permanente.


To emulate Kaiser Permanente it is very important to have primary and secondary care working together.

Simple enough?

Yet even when the evidence was so clearly written out for the politicians they still act as it they did not know and wanted to push forward the agenda of using market forces to lower the cost of health care.  Or did they know and were just pretending????

It reminded me of the Mercedes A-Class when it first came out:


Contrary to what many may think, we road testers do get swayed by the opinions of colleagues and I found myself in a quandary. Here was a car from one of the world's most ruthlessly efficient manufacturers, a car that my colleagues liked very much.
It takes a very special kind of bombastic arrogance to be that little boy in The Emperor's New Clothes - to stand up and say: "Actually, its handling is appalling."

But thank God I did, because just a week later, a Swedish magazine found to its cost that while performing what's become known as the ‘Elk Test', the A-class rolled over and put its occupants in hospital. A German mag then repeated the procedure and subsequent examination of the film showed that what we had here was A-class One Disaster.”

From one of their own advisers: Prof Chris Ham

Parliament debate: Public Bill Committee
Chris Ham"May I add something briefly? The big question is not whether GP commissioners need expert advice or patient input or other sources of information. The big problem that we have had over the past 20 years, in successive attempts to apply market principles in the NHS, has been the fundamental weakness of commissioning, whether done by managers or GPs, and whether it has been fundholding or total purchasing."                             


“………The barriers include government policies that risk further fragmenting care rather than supporting closer integration. Particularly important in this respect are NHS Foundation Trusts based on acute hospitals only, the system of payment by results that rewards additional hospital activity, and practice based commissioning that, in the wrong hands, could accentuate instead of reduce divisions between primary and secondary care.”

Kaiser Permente Model:
Integration The most distinctive feature of the KP model is the way in which it integrates care:

Integrated inpatient and outpatient care enables patients to move easily between hospitals and the community, or into skilled nursing facilities should this be needed.

Medical specialists are not tied to a particular building – such as a hospital – but provide care in the most appropriate setting. Specialists work alongside generalists in multi-speciality medical groups that help communication between physicians. There is no incentive to build up facilities and resources at the expense of other settings.

Integrated prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care. A high priority is attached to keeping people healthy and avoiding the use of hospital services. Chronic disease management programmes, where care is delivered within the framework mentioned above, help ensure that care is provided as close to home as possible. Doctors have fast access to diagnostic services in the outpatient setting and practice from relatively large medical centres where diagnostic and other equipment is easily accessible.

Nowadays, it seems that the Emperor does not even listen when he is told.

Clarkson said of the A Class Elk problem: it worries me that Mercedes, if they did not know about the problem they should not be in the business of making cars. And if they did know: it is very worrying!

I somehow think that politicians knew. Very worrying indeed!

Perhaps our Emperor did know, he knew about what he was wearing or not wearing.


A Class or S Class (S for second class or scary!)

The NHS had, I later gathered, been obliged to take the second-class service offered by a disorganised offshoot of some US corporation: unsurprisingly its low standards allowed it to undercut Marie Curie's bid for the work. It seemed bizarre that the NHS was manoeuvred by an aggressive privatisation lobby into accepting a clearly inferior service from a company run from a country incapable of organising a health service for its own citizens.

Links: Jobbing Doctor

No comments: