Jan 29, 2012
Emperor's New Clothes: Tailor speaks again! Chris Ham in the Guardian:
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.”
Oct 01, 2011
The dire performance of a £3bn contract to upgrade NHS computer systems had been "fraudulently concealed" from investors in American IT contractor Computer Sciences Corporation for years, according to a class action claim being brought by angry shareholders.
Besieged executives at CSC, a company listed on Wall Street with a market value of $4.25bn, now face the possibility of litigation on two fronts – from shareholders and the British taxpayer. The group's existing NHS work is running years behind schedule and has racked up huge costs, much of which have yet to be divided between CSC and British taxpayers. At the centre of problems has been CSC's much-delayed acute hospital software package, Lorenzo.
According to the class action complaint, brought on behalf of a number of investors led by a major Canadian fund, the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, as early as May 2008 CSC knew, through reports and testing, that Lorenzo was "dysfunctional and undeliverable".
Aug 13, 2011
Given the ineptitude that has characterised this project, disaster was almost certain. According to a new report by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the Department has failed to get value for the vast sums of money that it has paid contractors. Of the two
tailors companies that are still involved in the
project, one has yet to deliver the bulk of the systems that it was contracted
to supply despite being paid £1•8 billion since 2002, and the other is being
paid £9 million to implement systems at each NHS site that have cost other
organisations outside the programme £2 million. The Department seems to have
been foolishly duped by commercial companies that promised the
sun, cost the earth, and delivered not much more than hot air. Damningly, PAC's
report states: “The Department could have avoided some of the pitfalls and
waste if they had consulted at the start of the process with health
professionals.” Apologies to Lancet for the typo!!!
Aug 23, 2011
PFI: The Enron of the NHS
“PFI makes me particularly angry. It is a guaranteed loan to property investors, where high-rate mortgage payments are kept off-balance to reduce the country’s declared debt. In other words, it’s the Enron of the NHS. This is money the NHS has committed to leave frontline healthcare for the next 35 years.”
In NHS: Free Advice: a Professor of Medicine
The best advice is often free. Yet our government would prefer to spend millions (or was it billions) to buy them from people whose only motive is to get the easiest money they can lay their hands on: government money. Just look at Greece. Here in the
UK, despite the fact
that we have failures like Metronet, we still have other PPP/PFI projects.
We might get new hospitals that look like airport lounges but what about the doctors and nurses when we cannot afford them. Or are these places only there to house the ever increasing numbers of managers. What about the patients? Patients, did you say?
Aug 08, 2011
Last year there was a fuss when it became apparent that the government wanted to close NHS Direct, and as a result of the outrage the service was given a reprieve. But like everything with this weasel government, the "reprieve" was only partial because the government merely said that NHS Direct would be expected to be just one of several providers of the new NHS 111 service. Yes, that is right, the government thinks that there has to be competition. Bizarre? Indeed. We live in Lala land ruled by people who think that nothing can work without enforced and inappropriate competition.
"strategic health authorities have been given seven weeks to tell the DoH how and when they plan to roll-out NHS 111 hotlines across their area ... one senior GP warned the deadline was 'crazy' given that the pilot NHS 111 schemes across the UK were either incomplete, or yet even to begin"
Read about the Emperor here>>>>>
Have they not considered fraud for NHS 111. How easy would it be for fake phone calls to be made and for the newly privatised NHS 111 to collect £16.00 or more per call.
Aug 09, 2011
The greatest threat to the NHS is perversely that of its regulator and in turn it is a threat to our democracy as the regulator is not elected and therefore not accountable to the electorate.
“……Tom Clark our leader writer says the real problem with the bill is the fact that the new regulator has a duty to promote competition where appropriate. He points out that in a previous life as a special adviser the regulator used his powers to squeeze state bodies in order to open up the space for private providers. It's why he is so against competition.”
Aug 26, 2011
Most people who take an interest believe that the amended Health and Social Care Bill is a regurgitated dog’s dinner.
Most doctors don’t want to see this legislation introduced. There is nothing here for hospital doctors, and the privatised future looks grim for junior doctors and medical students. Even GPs, who were meant to sign up in droves, have realized that the prize of GP commissioning is not worth the price they are being asked to pay.
A back of the fag packet calculation suggests that the percentage of doctors who support (as opposed to have been forced to get involved with) the Bill is in single figures.
The public don’t want it either, with polls showing widespread suspicion of the ‘reforms’
And yet it is still on the table, with a third reading at the beginning of September, when
MPs will hardly have had time to compare Tuscan tans. How can it be that the vast majority of health professionals detest the legislation and yet we still haven’t managed to see it off?