To think "failure" of a privately run hospital proves all hospitals should be privately run

[Theoretician]

Article in the Telegraph this morning saying that private operator Circle is pulling out of running Hinchingbrooke hospital. They say that outputs (demand for services) have increased and inputs (government money) have decreased, therefore it is no longer viable for them to be involved.

What would an NHS-run hospital do in the same circumstances? Try to cut quality of care in ways that aren't too obvious or noticeable to the public, I think. The sort of thing that, in the most extreme cases, results in the kind of neglect we've seen in some recent scandals.

I suppose it's not inevitable that a private operator would have the integrity to pull out when politicians promises and health funding diverge. But at least there's a chance. I'm not aware of any cases where a NHS hospital manager has turned round to the government and told them to fuck off, because they're asking for the impossible. If they did, it would make no difference, they'd just be replaced by someone willing to pretend that targets were achievable. And it wouldn't be a news story.

Strictly speaking, it's not being privately run that makes this case different, it's being run at arms-length from the government by an organisation that won't compromise on quality, and regards any divergence between funding and demand as someone else's problem. (Which it is. Specifically it's for politicians to reconcile the two.) So truly independent trusts, who prioritise quality above everything else, might do just as well.

Ideologically you are right OP, in terms of the fact that people who work in the NHS do their very best in fucking awful circumstances, no resources, unachievable targets, increasing demands, poor health and high stress levels, reducing pay, job uncertainty...
However, because the majority of people who work in the NHS do so as a vocation and care immensely about their patients they won't walk out. And this is what the government rely upon. As others have said, no one wants to do the shit bits - private companies survive by being inflexible and hard faced when it comes to patient care but because they have nice curtains and a coffee machine people are often distracted from the reality. But you can't operate like this in emergency care, you have to deal with whatever comes through the door and private companies will get a shock if they try it.
People watched that TV programme, was it called Jerry fixes the NHS or something? and thinks 'that's the solution' but that's incredibly naive and as others have said 'dangerous'. I hope what we have learned from this is that it isn't the fault of the staff but the increasing expectations balanced against a reduction in funds.

Yabu

Because you're forgetting that within this hospital there are people, ill people, real life people who need care.

Not widgets being made in a factory for profit.

This is the biggest problem with the NHS. In a bid to achieve efficiency, politicians turn to private sector ideals (then private sector operators) thinking they can provide the answer. But there is no evidence which says that the "private sector" is better.

The public sector is much more accountable so you hear more about their failings. You don't hear quite so much about private sector failings because they don't have to tell anyone apart from their shareholders. You don't know about the creaking IT systems, the low cost short cuts etc etc.

So I would prefer that the NHS was not forced into a quasi private sector body - it just doesn't work that way. The biggest problem are the politicians who keep meddling all the fucking time.

YABU - that is the problem with the private sector.

It isn't about integrity. They have to make money. That is fine but that leaves people high and dry when they can no longer make money.

If everybody pulls out no hospital.

On the other hand public sector staff do go on strike, but they don't tend to abandon patients completely.

Perhaps some of the problems started when patients began to be called customers by the higher up levels.

I thought that was just a daily mail thing? I worked in healthcare for 23 years and never heard that

I've never heard of a patient being called a customer. I suppose we're in a similar position to local councils who are also under immense financial pressure. They can't just say, we don't have enough money to provide all these services, so fuck off.

The image of overpaid NHS managers who care about nothing but the bottom line is not a true one. The majority of managers (particularly those in middle management) have clinical experience and joined the NHS because they wanted to make a difference.

Nhsworker15
I completely agree although I think there are some who need to get out if they can't remember that (but that's just a personal bug bear!)

I mean at government level in policy docs etc not at clinical level. Those people have forgotten what the NHS is for. Not a political football to be kicked around and toyed with constantly.

Managers have been saying that to govt, effectively.

They've overspent and put their hospital budgets in deficit rather than let patients down.

Govt response: oh, you must be a bad manager and this is a "failing" hospital.

When you see that on the news, is your reaction, "Oh that's a bad hospital," or, "Those managers have been trying to put patients first"?

Because if it's the former, what hope do managers have of making the point you demand they make?

[Disclaimer: obviously there can be bad management of hospitals. But there are also lots doing the very best job they can with less money per head than almost every other developed country's health system. See Pacific's link.]

"Fast, cheap or good: pick any two."

See, I think that's it, in a nutshell.
And it needs to be said out loud: of course there is a limitation what the service can provide. Of course some things will be provided and others won't. Difficult and painful decisions need to be made.

Instead there is waffling and handwringing and blaming primary care (which, btw provided 90% of care for 9% of the budget).

Re pension: I really don't want to get in to a slinging match about that, but please give over with the 6 figure salaries. I am sure there are doctors who earn that kind of money but the vast majority does not. And just like teachers (who, yes, earn less) and other public servants it does not seem fair to be told at the end of your working life that your pension won't be whatever you signed up for.