Thursday, December 13, 2012

NHS: Dawn?

Is it beginning to dawn on some people?

Are the government's health reforms a step forward - or a step 

towards the eventual dismantling of the NHS?



                                                   ©Am Ang Zhang 2011

Gerry Robinson:
Businessman Sir Gerry Robinson fears 'end of the NHS'

Some PCTs have already begun to close.

As the coalition government plans the biggest shake up in the 63-year history of the NHS, businessman and corporate troubleshooter Sir Gerry Robinson offers his viewpoint after spending six months taking the NHS's pulse.

Are the government's health reforms a step forward - or a step towards the eventual dismantling of the NHS?

Two sides of a story:
The changes are better for patients and better for NHS finances according to Dr Kosta Manis, a GP in Bexley. And key to that is the central reform - giving GPs substantial control over budgets instead of the current PCTs.

And that means control over how much they pay for services from the NHS and how much they buy in from the private sector.

In the past, Dr Manis referred patients with heart complaints to a local hospital where consultants usually ordered an often painful and expensive angiogram, using a catheter to probe inside the coronary arteries.

Dr Manis has found a more effective and cheaper alternative, which makes invasive angiograms unnecessary.

Patients at Dr Manis's surgery are examined on the spot to decide whether tests are needed by a top cardiologist, Dr David Brennand-Roper, brought in from a London teaching hospital.

If Dr Manis's patients require further tests, they are sent to a private Harley Street clinic equipped with a high-tech CT scan. They showed a healthy looking lady having the procedure.

This is an example where NHS money is being spent on a private provider - simply because they have got better kit.

I agree with saving the money where possible, but I really do wonder why we cannot have similar facilities to that Harley Street clinic within the NHS - especially if it presents cost savings.

Surprise! Surprise!

But wait: from the Mayo website
If blockages are found with a traditional coronary angiogram, the doctor can perform a procedure called angioplasty to open the blockages straight away.

However, because no catheter is used with the CT angiogram, if a blockage in one’s heart's arteries is found, a separate procedure (a traditional coronary angiogram) is needed.

So it may not be as straight forward as it first appeared.

Oh and the young healthy looking Angela has a normal CT angiogram! But the decision was made by a top cardiologist. The PCT had to pay for that “normal” CT angiogram. Panorama did not raise any question there.

Dr Manis was also concerned that angiograms were often routinely ordered at the local hospital because they were a source of income for the NHS hospital, not because they were absolutely necessary. Wow!


Remember Mayo again?
Virtually all Mayo employees are salaried with no incentive payments, separating the number of patients seen or procedures performed from personal gain. One surgeon refers to this tradition as a ‘‘disincentive system that works.’’ Adds another surgeon: “By not having our economics tied to our cases, we are free to do what comes naturally, and that is to help one another out. .  .. Our system removes a set of perverse incentives and permits us to make all clinical decisions on the basis of what is best for the patient.”

That was how it used to be in our NHS!!!


It may be simpler to do away with Internal Market and incentive system.

I quoted Prof Waxman in an earlier post:

The internal market’s billing system is not only costly and bureaucratic, the theory that underpins it is absurd. Why should a bill for the treatment of a patient go out to Oldham or Oxford, when it is not Oldham or Oxford that pays the bill — there is only one person that picks up the tab: the taxpayer, you and me.

……..Moving patients from one place to another does not save the nation’s money, though it might save a local hospital some dosh. So the internal market has failed because it does not consider the health of the nation as a whole, merely the finances of a single hospital department, a local hospital or GP practice.
Panorama again:

Andrew Lansley Knew:
The former health secretary agreed that the current system can encourage waste.

"It happens because of the way the payment system in the NHS works at the moment - because it pays for activity. So of course if you incentivise somebody just to do more work, they will do more work," Mr Lansley said.

This naturally provides great potential for waste if hospitals are not vigorous in weeding out unnecessary procedures.

I also have concerns that GP reforms would affect other elements of the NHS, possibly even leading to hospital closures if hospital incomes are significantly reduced as money is spent instead on private health care.


Gerry Robinson again:

Still, I am left with serious doubts about key elements of the plans as they stand.

I think the stakes here are huge. Who is going to be managing that big picture?

Unless somebody really does grab this thing at the centre and has the courage to make unpopular but right decisions then I fear this could spell the end of the NHS.

You can catch Margaret McCartney on the show!

Jobbing Doctor: This is important

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Money! Money! Money!: HSBC, KPMG & Others!


Autumn is looking good for some:
©2012 Am Ang Zhang
  


New York Times:
DECEMBER 11, 2012
Federal and state authorities announced on Tuesday that they had secured a record $1.92 billion payment from HSBC to settle charges that the British banking giant transferred billions of dollars for sanctioned nations, facilitated Mexican drug cartels to launder tainted money and worked with Saudi Arabian banks with ties to terrorist organizations.

The case, a major victory for the government, represents the conclusion of a multi-agency investigation. It convened the Justice Department, the Manhattan district attorney’s office, bank regulators and the Treasury Department.

In a filing in Federal District Court in Brooklyn, federal prosecutors said the bank had agreed to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement and to forfeit $1.26 billion. The four-count criminal information filed in the court charged HSBC with failure to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program, failure to conduct due diligence on its foreign correspondent affiliates and violating sanctions and the Trading With the Enemy Act.

 “HSBC is being held accountable for stunning failures of oversight – and worse – that led the bank to permit narcotics traffickers and others to launder hundreds of millions of dollars through HSBC subsidiaries, and to facilitate hundreds of millions more in transactions with sanctioned countries, ” Lanny A. Breuer, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, said in a statement

At the upper echelons of the organization, the Senate report found, some bank executives had ignored warning signs and permitted the illegal behavior to continue unabated from 2001 to 2010.

Something strange here:
Lord Green, was HSBC's chairman from 2006 to 2010, after serving as its chief executive between 2003 and 2006. He is the current UK trade minister.
More:

The original problems began when agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement spotted questionable trails of money between HSBC’s Mexican and United States operations.

Despite a chorus of warnings from federal banking regulators about the vulnerability of HSBC’s operations throughout the world, the bank didn’t fortify its controls, the Senate report found.

One of HSBC’s branches in the Cayman Islands, the Senate report said, had virtually no oversight despite holding roughly 50,000 client accounts.

Other banks:
Standard Chartered: fined $340m (£203m) to settle federal charges that it laundered money on behalf of four countries, including Iran, that were subject to US economic sanctions.
That deal covered currency transactions made at the bank's New York branch for Iranian, Sudanese, Libyan and Burmese entities from 2001 to 2007.

ING Bank NV, agreed to pay $619m (£384.8m) to settle allegations that it violated sanctions against countries including Cuba and Iran.

Not just banks:

KPMG to Pay $456 Million for Criminal Violations

IR-2005-83, Updated: 14-Aug-2012

WASHINGTON — KPMG LLP (KPMG) has admitted to criminal wrongdoing and agreed to pay $456 million in fines, restitution and penalties as part of an agreement to defer prosecution of the firm, the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service announced today.

In the largest criminal tax case ever filed, KPMG has admitted that it engaged in a fraud that generated at least $11 billion dollars in phony tax losses which, according to court papers, cost the United States at least $2.5 billion dollars in evaded taxes. In addition to KPMG’s former deputy chairman, the individuals indicted today include two former heads of KPMG’s tax practice and a former tax partner in the New York, NY office of a prominent national law firm.



By David Glovin - April 2, 2009 00:01 EDT

April 2 (Bloomberg) -- Former KPMG LLP senior manager John Larson was sentenced to 10 years in prison and former partner Robert Pfaff got eight years for selling illegal shelters that helped wealthy clients evade more than $100 million in taxes.

Larson was also fined $6 million yesterday in Manhattan federal court, Pfaff was fined $3 million and both were immediately jailed. Lawyer Raymond Ruble, a former partner at Brown & Wood LLP, was given a 6 1/2-year sentence. The three were convicted on Dec. 17 of tax fraud and other charges.

“All three defendants were central” to the tax shelter scheme, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplansaid in court. “They were instrumental in moving it through the KPMG bureaucracy.”

HSBC:
Independent
FRIDAY 20 JULY 2012

Lord Green urged to explain how much he knew about shamed bank's money laundering.

Profile: The banker who balances God and Mammon
Lord Green is not your everyday banker. He couldn't be further from the profession's image of immoral, bonus-fuelled money-grubbers.

Unfailingly courteous, cerebral and deeply religious, the tall and bone-thin peer sometimes seemed like one of the better sorts of civil servant when he was running the world's local bank. Which is what he was for a number of years (at the Ministry of Overseas Development) having first spent a year working in a hostel for alcoholics where he met his wife, Joy. From there, he joined McKinsey, the management consultancy, where he spent five years and earned a passport into the fast track of finance. He joined HSBC in 1982 and was on the board within 16 years with responsibility for investment banking. He became chief executive in 2003, and, three years later, executive chairman.

Yet the contradictions presented by his faith – he is an ordained minister – and his career never left him. He found the time to pen two books – Serving God, Serving Mammon, reconciling his career with this faith, and Good Value: Choosing a Better Life in Business. Perhaps some of his colleagues should have read them, then the bank's issues may not have arisen.

He is the current UK trade minister.

KPMG:
The Government has appointed KPMG UK chairman John Griffith-Jones as the first chair designate of the Financial Conduct Authority.

Griffith-Jones will join the FSA board on September 1, 2012 as a non-executive director and deputy chair.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

NHS & Obamacare: Opposite directions!


Opposite directions?
©2012 Am Ang Zhang

Now that Obama is re-elected for his second term, Obamacare looks like having a good chance of moving health care in the US in quite the opposite direction to where our NHS is moving.

There is little doubt that a system based on insurance will need smart legislation to control the insurers. If the NHS is going to make use of wealthier individuals to use Health Insurance, then the same smart laws will need to be enacted for the regulation of Insurers. We should have learnt through the banking failures that in business, there is no such thing as self regulation.

The following was published just before the election:

The Affordable Care Act's benefits are hidden beneath the alarmist rhetoric
Nov 5, 2012


Columnist Wendell Potter Robin Holland

Wouldn’t it be great if our candidates had to take a dose of truth serum every morning before hitting the campaign trail? If they did, those of us who will be voting tomorrow wouldn’t be nearly as confused about what Obamacare is and what it isn’t, what it will do and what it won’t.

Since there is no such truth serum requirement, I believe that many of us will actually be voting against our own best interests. Many Americans will vote for candidates who have scared them into believing that Obamacare is a government takeover of health care that it will bankrupt the country while slashing Medicare benefits.

In the event that you or someone you know might benefit from some truth-telling, here, then, are a few things you ought to know before pulling that lever tomorrow:

·         The Affordable Care Act is not a government takeover that has put us on a slippery slope toward socialism, or even toward a single-payer system like the one in the People’s Republic of Canada.
·         The legislation is not going to add trillions to the deficit, even though it will expand Medicaid and provide subsidies to low-income individuals and families to buy private coverage.
·         The Affordable Care Act will not cut Medicare benefits.

One of the reasons the hospital industry endorsed Obamacare is that by bringing more people into coverage, hospitals will not have to provide nearly as much uncompensated care, which hits their bottom lines very hard. So hospitals were quite willing to go along with a reduction in future payments from the government because they know they will more than make up for it by having far fewer uninsured patients.

Here are some things the law will do:
·         It will prohibit insurance companies from refusing to sell coverage to people simply because they have one or more pre-existing conditions.
·         It will also prohibit them from cancelling our coverage when we get sick just to avoid paying for our care.
·         It will prohibit insurers from charging women more than men for comparable coverage and will not allow them to charge older folks more than three times as much as younger folks.
·         It will require them to spend at least 80 percent of what we pay in premiums actually paying claims and improving care.
·         It will allow young adults—who comprise the largest segment of the uninsured—to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26.
·         It will reduce the number of uninsured Americans by at least 30 million if all the states agree to accept federal dollars to expand their Medicaid programs.

That said, Obamacare is not a panacea for all that ails the U.S. health care system. I view it as the end of the beginning of reform. We will have to do more as a nation to bring everyone into coverage, to control costs and to improve the way we deliver care. But Obamacare does not resemble the law that many politicians have spent millions of dollars trying to persuade us it is.  Don’t be fooled into voting against your own best interests tomorrow.

Saving NHS: Control Health Insurers!


Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Central Park: Hello Autumn!

© Am Ang Zhang 2012


NHS: Looking Sinister!



My friend wrote asking if I have read a recent blog post about our new Health secretary and a former one.

“It is looking sinister!”

 ©2012 Am Ang Zhang

The one-word secret of Hunt’s success: NEPOTISM His relationship to Virginia Bottomley…..his dealings with the British Council….his inheritance of the SW Surrey constituency….

…..So there’s Jeremy newly installed as Health Secretary after just seven short years as an MP. This is a summary of his meteoric rise:

He made a fortune at the taxpayers’ expense as monopoly supplier to a notorious quango where, by happy coincidence, his cousin sat on the Board. He became MP for SW Surrey where, by happy coincidence, his cousin had been MP previously. He became Minister in charge of Media & Culture where, by happy coincidence, he wound up steering his pals at Newscorp in the right direction. And he became Health Secretary partly because, by happy coincidence, his cousin is a lobbyist for the private health sector……



The 21st century power brokers -- less stable, less visible, more peripatetic, and more global in reach than their elite forebears -- are potentially more insidious and dangerous to democracy. Their manoeuvrings are largely beyond the reach of traditional monitors. Unlike the rest of us, these players are virtually immune to accountability to voters or government or corporate overseers, because the full range of their activities and their true agendas are more difficult to detect.                       Janinie R. Wedel
               

                                                    From:    Shadow Elite: Public-Private Players & The NHS

        
        
I think there is something fundamentally scary about our democracy…. 
Because I think people have a sense that the system is rigged, 
and it’s hard to argue that it isn’t.
                            
Michael Lewis: The Big Short

Thursday, November 1, 2012

NHS & Railway: Specialists & JFK


Seeing the light:


© 2012 Am Ang Zhang

There is little doubt that the privatisation of the NHS is following the privatisation of British Rail in a perverse fashion. The separation of Track and Train operation is now being applied in an inverted fashion to health care in England.

The money is “given” to GPs via CCGs and health care will now be “bought” by them from anybody they wish to buy from. Most of us can see the flaw and unnecessary cost of such a market system and with a limited pot of money, the wastage on administration will approach that of the US system not to mention gaming and fraud that will lead to unnecessary treatment and its consequences.

In health care, death is irreversible.

The tension between GPs and Hospital Consultants in this country is historic and the success of Andrew Lansley and the Health Bill is more or less the result of the tactical play of that tension.

It is undeniable that the change of GP contract leading to a very skewed financial reward has meant that the average Hospital Consultant is lagging behind in financial rewards. This is most unusual in the Western world.

Many medical graduates will try and pick a specialty that may promise a better private practice reward if they want to become a specialist or else emigrate if generate practice is not their scene.

England leads the world of medicine for many years and most of us from Hong Kong came to receive our specialist training here. After all an English Physician did managed to diagnose JFK’s Addison’s disease (1947)when the best of America couldn’t.


A Hospital based health service:



The Cockroach Catcher has many medical friends working in different health care systems and most of my friends find our GP system ‘unique’. They see that progress in medical science has meant that it is difficult for a generalist to be able to do everything. Many medical procedures require specialist training.



Growth in most other countries has been in the area of specialist doctors.

The UK is the only country in the Western Word that is defying the trend. The serious side effect is that soon we might be running out of specialists in this country: well trained specialists.

So, what would be so wrong with a Hospital based integrated NHS.


My suspicion is that it will happen but it would be the privateers that will be doing it to have full control of cost that would be escalating. 


It is already happening in the US and believe you me, it will here. By then it will be too late as the specialists would have left the state run NHS.




The Light: For those who thought Labour would repeal the HSC Act, you have a shock coming: Labour never re-nationalised the Railways, so they would never re-nationalised the NHS.  Looks like next time too, it would not be an English Physician that would help to diagnose an American President.

Mayo Clinic: Disincentive system that works.

Disincentive system that works.
Virtually all Mayo employees are salaried with no incentive payments, separating the number of patients seen or procedures performed from personal gain. One surgeon refers to this tradition as a ‘‘disincentive system that works.’’ Adds another surgeon: “By not having our economics tied to our cases, we are free to do what comes naturally, and that is to help one another out. .  .. Our system removes a set of perverse incentives and permits us to make all clinical decisions on the basis of what is best for the patient.”

These are values that can be traced directly back to William Mayo and Charles Mayo, who, together with their father, William Worrall Mayo, founded Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic in 1903. The Clinic was one of the first examples of group practice in the United States. As Doctor William Mayo explained in 1905: “The best interest of the patient is the only interest to be considered, and in order that the sick may have the benefit of advancing knowledge, union of forces is necessary…it has become necessary to develop medicine as a cooperative science.”