49% of Hospital Work Can Now Be Private

[Highlander]

Previously, it was 1%.

This can happen right now, one of many meaures allowing a 2 tier healthcare system, Bill or. No Bill.

I'm shocked no-one has commented on this.

Just to be oerfectly clear.

Currently, Each hospital can only generate 1% of it's income from private work. The Tories have recently changed this to 49%.

The Tories have scrapped the 18 week limit for a new patient to see a Consultant

Together, these 2 little nuggets are paving the way for a 2 tier healthcare system in the UK.

I'm too depressed to comment on many In the news stories at the moment. But thanks for highlighting it. I just keep thinking that they really are going to vandalise it all so it becomes too expensive to put back together.

There has always been a multi-tier health system. Does it really matter if money goes to an NHS hospital or a private hospital? NHS hospitals might as well get a share of the cream.

I wouldn't be fooled into believing that NHS hospitals previously generated 1% of their income from sources other than the taxpayer. There have always been paybeds, and little extras such as car-parking and bedside TV. This is not to forget that many NHS hospitals have a private hospital on their grounds.

Highlander, you are right, it is horrifying. Depressing too - the Lib Dems had every opportunity to stand up against this bill, but fudged it.

MrsMeaner, it is different - it's on a whole different scale. Of course NHS trust chief executives are going to prioritize making money from private treatments and private beds. While the Tories are getting rid of waiting time targets. So chief execs will leave people who need healthcare languishing, while those who can pay will get faster treatment in better conditions with more staff to look after them. Disgusting.

Aneurin Bevan called the NHS 'the greatest collective act of goodwill' that there had ever been in this country. And the current government has torn it up. Bastards.

The Bevan version of the NHS did have "pay beds" though. It was Barbara Castle who abolished them, several decades on. Having them again is not novel for NHS, and is (arguably) closer to the original set up.

Except it isn't true. The current limit is whatever the amount was in 2002 (which for the Royal Marsden for example is around 30%). The bill allows an increase of 5% at the discretion of the hospital or higher with the agreement of monitor (which is where the statutory limit comes in).

The test about allowing this should be whether it improves the situation for the NHS patients or not.

The Conservative was that there should be no limit.

Exactly - this 1% figure is simply not true and never has been.

Even the abolishment of pay beds is not true. I had a pay bed when I had my DS1 in 1992. They called them amenity beds rather than pay beds, but very much the same thing.

My view is that if people want to pay for health care, they are going to do just that. You cannot stop them and still live in a free country. If you are going to have private healthcare, the NHS might as well be one of the providers.

When I look at dentistry, I see that it has vastly improved since becoming more private. I know that not everyone will agree with this, but people really do have nicer teeth now than they did in the 1970s and 1980s. Yes, it costs us more, but we get direct personal benefits.

As long as the NHS makes a profit and it does not adversely affect NHS patients I don't think there is anything wrong with accepting private money.

'it does not adversely affect NHS patients' - yeah right. Seeing what trust chief execs will do even before this comes in, do you really think they will resist the attractions in terms of pay and career development that come from putting all their efforts into flash stuff that attracts high payers?

And as for relying on Monitor to make trusts behave properly... Monitor is interested in business. It has never had any interest in patient safety. They allowed Mid-Staffs to become a foundation trust, ffs - that is precisely why it was such a shit hospital, because the managers were too busy chasing FT status, they cut costs by under-staffing and hundreds of patients were starved, left in their own faeces, driven to drink out of flower vases and ultimately killed as a result. And everyone in the health service says there will be other Mid Staffs that are going on under the radar.

The irresponsible, dangerous health bill will see commissioners not having any responsibility for patient safety or the quality of care - the CQC won't be inspecting them at all. (Not that the CQC is particularly impressive but it's the only thing we've got.) So clinical commissioning groups, largely contracted out to effing McKinseys, can merrily shut down A&E or maternity departments, or shut down departments in decent hospitals and force patients to go to crap ones, with no way of stopping them. As is currently planned for East London, where they are planning to shut a good maternity department and force everyone to go to the one where five mothers and babies have been killed by incompetence over the past three years.

I accept that the CQC tend towards covering things up, but the bill does include a duty to improve quality of care. What we need to do is to stop the covering up of problems. However, the legal system tends to cover things up rather than deal with problems. I spoke on this in Berlin recently which you can see here:
johnhemming.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/berlin-speech-icd-freedom-of-expression.html

And this highlights the difference between the founding principle of the NHS, treatment according to need, not according to ability to pay, and the new soundbite, free at the point of delivery.

This begs the question of exactly what is being delivered.

Under a two-tier system, a hospital can deliver a significantly worse service to the non-paying patients - long waiting lists because the beds are full of private patients, fewer nursing checks, less toilet assistance, less phsyiotherapy, etc.

last time the Tories were in it was an 18 month wait to see a consultant, then 19 months for an MRI etc etc
We will be back to those figures before long.

kal, that is exactly what DH (a hospital consultant) is saying.

So I think the proposals are generally better for NHS patients. Others disagree. What I find sad is those who argue that there is an intention to undermine the NHS.

well thats what it looks like to us ordinary people John. Lib-Dems sold us out.

Surely it's very clear that there is an intention to undermine the NHS? If this was going to improve services for non-paying patients, why would the government have felt it necessary to remove the targets on waiting times. They know that this will push those who cannot afford private treatment to the back of the queue.

And also, why won't the government publish the register of risks for this bill? What is it that they don't want to know.

I'm amazed that people aren't rioting in the streets about this tbh. So much that we hold dear being dismantled before our very eyes. :(

What is it that they don't want us to know?

The whole point is to undermine the NHS, JH. Especially as this law will open up the NHS to European competition law. Everything will have to be put out to tender - at huge expense. It will be impossible for smaller organisations, charities and social enterprises, to compete with big business - it is only large corporations that can afford to play that game. The only winner will be businesses like Crapita and McKinseys (who dreamt this whole thing up in the first place). There will be millions of losers - those inconvenient people called patients and taxpayers.

Still, the docs are coming out fighting, and planning to field candidates in Lib Dem and Tory seats at the next election. Will be nice to see some of the lickspittle lying NHS-betraying politicians ('there will be no top-down reorganisation of the NHS' said the Tory manifesto getting their comeuppance.

Sadly it will be too late by then to save the NHS...

Sadly it will be too late by then to save the NHS...

I fear it's already too late to save it now, isn't it Edam? Is there anything else we can do?

I see th LibDems rolled over on the vote regarding the risk assessment. Honestly, its shameful. They were meant to act as a break on the Tories. The membership are not happy but are as ignored as the rest of the population.

edam, I would disagree with you that 'the docs are coming out fighting'. The turnout from each medical college to vote was poor.

At the end of the day, doctors will still be in a job. DH was approached by some collegues a few months back to set up a Cariology consortium in his hospital for when the bill is passed. He thinks it won't be long before the UK moves to a system similiar to Ireland/NZ where dictors split their time between NHS and private work in the same hospital. This is where the new '49%' rule comes in.

Medics who are UK trained will set up private practices, leaving p/t consultants and IMGs To cope with the NHS work.

Highlander - you could well be right but I was referring to the 250 docs who wrote to the Indie pledging to field candidates against MPs who voted for the health bill. Some of the bastards are in quite marginal seats.

I was at a function in Portcullis House on Tuesday night. It was horrible seeing the screens they have showing what the current debate is, who is speaking and what they are voting on, and hearing the division bell ringing for the votes that would end the NHS.

Oops, sorry jinsei. I wish I knew... I guess just keep a very careful eye out and make sure any and all examples of privatisation/shit care/sacking nurses and so on are made very public. For instance, Serco have just won a contract to provide community health services in (I think but would have to check) South West London. FFS.

What I find difficult is to work out why anyone thinks the bill that has just passed will itself "end the NHS".

Just to clarify: this only applies in England. The Scottish government has no plans to change our NHS, which has always been a separate entity and is a devolved matter.