Richard Branson sues NHS

[twinklystar23]

This was a year or so ago, anyone heard anything about it?

I live in an area where virgin were given a contract all kept under wraps to local stakeholders.

Branson’s Virgin Care Services claimed there were ‘serious flaws in the procurement process’, which prompted ‘concerns’.

Read more: metro.co.uk/2018/12/15/richard-branson-sue-nhs-virgin-care-received-undisclosed-settlement-8250870/?ito=cbshare
Twitter: twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

He sued the NHS for £2 million, to add to his billions and said he wasn’t motivated by money. He had lost an £82 million contract in Surrey and felt he should screw the NHS for some compo.
Jeremy Corbyn suggested that since Branson says he isn’t motivated by money perhaps he could return the £2 million to the NHS.

He has the money to do it but why would he want to damage an already failing service. He should return the money imho

Maybe Corbyn should read the Metro article and

“Our stated preference throughout was not to be paid damages but that the process be re-run properly in the interests of local families and the frontline staff.”

“Contrary to reports, no money has been pocketed by Virgin Group or Sir Richard Branson and we continue to invest funds in the frontline NHS services we deliver.”

I doubt the settlement even covered the legal fees. And yes, even our beloved NHS needs a kick in the ass if their procurement process is so fucked up that someone can raise a legal case against you for it.

there was an issue of this highlighted by 38 degrees, the grassroots campaigning organisation, and where I came across it. Additionally, there was an issue regarding the Translantic Trade (Alliance?) or Partnership, which citied this very situation where corporations could potentially sue the government if they did not get to deliver services, such as NHS and local government, makes me wonder if BoJo is fattening up these services to a) win some popularity b) then have them up for tender to rich American firms, hence Trumps claim of "the NHS and a lot more, would be on the table" scary times.

He wants to damage the nhs as he has more chance then of swooping in and bidding for contracts as they outsource stuff trying to save money.

Greedy fucker.

Serious misinformation.
The CCG split and recommissioned a highly performing contract. Virgin Care we’re providing children’s services very well. There were anomalies in the awarding of the new contracts and some inappropriate commissioning practice.
Virgin objected and went to judicial review of the commissioning and won. The process had been unlawful.
Virgin Care Services is a subsidiary of Virgin and the largest of the Virgin group health and social providers. They have successfully turned around many underperforming NHS health provider services that other providers had left languishing. They offer very good value for money and do not profit from the NHS. In fact, they subsidise the NHS through their central and global support functions working with commissioned services without charge.

Virgin do not make currently make any profit from the NHS services they provide.

www.gponline.com/second-virgin-care-practice-essex-rated-inadequate-cqc/article/1495959

Hmmmm

Additionally, there was an issue regarding the Translantic Trade (Alliance?) or Partnership, which citied this very situation where corporations could potentially sue the government if they did not get to deliver services, such as NHS and local government

You are referring to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a proposed trade agreement between the EU and the US. If we leave the EU it will not apply to the UK. Negotiations between the EU and the US have been ongoing for 6 years and look set to continue for several more years.

Opponents of TTIP claim that it will force privatisation of the NHS or make privatisation impossible to reverse. The EU says that the agreement will preserve the government's freedom to run the NHS and other public services. If the EU is right this will stop the NHS being forcibly opened up to US companies. Since the final text has not yet been negotiated, there is no way of checking. The EU may be hiding something or there may be a loophole in the final agreement that US companies will be able to exploit. But, if the EU is right, there is no threat to the NHS.

The government has said the NHS is not on the table in trade talks with the US (or anyone else). Trump u-turned the day after saying that the NHS was on the table. He said, "I don’t see it being on the table. Somebody asked me a question today and I say everything is up for negotiation, because everything is. But I don’t see that as being, that's something that I would not consider part of trade. That’s not trade." Until a deal is negotiated we have no way of knowing.

Fake news. Virgin’s care services are amongst the highest performing in the country. The replacement contract didn’t come close yet ‘won’ anyway. It was clear whoever approved the bid for their replacement didn’t follow due legal process - happens a lot on the NHS. Managers often give preference to friends / relatives etc for contracts.

gobbyone
I think if you look at the ownership of the practices and how long VCSL has owned them you’d see that Virgin took on the problem to turn it around. They have done likewise with several community hospitals. They had a good action plan in place and had made significant improvements within six months.

The provider report is below.
www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/new_reports/AAAG5716.pdf

Virgin Care we’re providing children’s services very well.

The recipients of those services in the Surrey area would tell you that they absolutely weren't. For professional purposes I had to deal with their speech and language service and it was dreadful.

Tonnerre That’s simply not true. Most people receiving services were very, very happy with the service they were getting.
Central Surrey Health had real delivery problems as many a Virgin staff wanted to remain in Virgin employ and were found jobs so they could stay.
The court found in favour of Virgin because the commissioning process was biased.

FFT for children’s services in North Surrey under Virgin ran at about 97% consistently.

CherryPavlova, I'm guessing you work for Virgin?

The fact remains that I've never seen a speech and language report from a therapist employed by Virgin in Surrey that came near to meeting what is required for a lawful EHC Plan, and I'm come across far too many cases where children who desperately required therapy that would actually meet their needs (as opposed to whatever fitted the standard Virgin model) were not getting it.

Then there was the interesting situation of a child who lived in one area of Surrey but went to school in another one. Virgin Area 1 said they wouldn't provide it at the school in Virgin Area 2, and Virgin Area 2 said they wouldn't provide it to children who lived in Area 1. They both seemed to think that leaving the child without therapy was an entirely reasonable and defensible situation.

@CherryPavlova

That's from 2017.

The story I posted was from 2018

And what is this 97% figure? What does it mean?

And what is this 97% figure? What does it mean?

In the NHS, FFT refers to Friends and Family Test data. This is generated by asking NHS users for their view of the service they have received. It also gathers feedback from staff. I haven't checked the figures but CherryPavlova is saying that 97% of users said they would recommend Virgin's service. This is a little above the national average.

Nationally, they have FFT at exactly national average in 2018, for entire NHS but with much higher response rates. They are geographically up against First Community Health and Care which has Outstanding children’s services so that is likely to impact on school gate opinion.

Children in same school will have a differently commissioned service. Parents will compare. That’s down to contracts.

Wiltshire children’s services are pretty good.
assets.nhs.uk/prod/documents/Wiltshire-Childrens-Community-Services-qa-2018.pdf

Surrey services are doing better with FFT in most recent quality account. No children now but doing OK.
assets.nhs.uk/prod/documents/Surrey-qa-2018.pdf

'Up against'?

That's a telling phrase. It's not a competition.

FFT is one indicator- do they actively encourage people to fill the forms out at Virgin Care?

Up against means geographically as in adjacent to.

If you don’t think competitive tendering and contract bidding isn’t competitive, you don’t understand the process.

Virgin response rates are much, much higher than the average so yes, they do encourage people to fill them in. I think they’re about three times the average response rates.

There are a set of laws which currently come from teh EU known as pub lic procurement laws. They are very sensible and ensure your local council does not award a lucrative contract to the CEO's uncle or the husband of the head of the school where you want your children to go. The rules are detailed and have to be followed by the NSH and other state bodies. Where they are not followed it is very important for citizens that Vrigin and others then sue otherwise the NHS could start awarding contracts to someone whose suit they like, or who the know from the golf club or local pub.

I think an important issue here is that this is OUR money, the commissioners are nothing less than guardians of public funds if beardie isn't going to put the money back into the NHS that he sued for. they should make absolutely certain that companies cannot take public money in commissioning or other ways. Lesson learnt.

they should make absolutely certain that companies cannot take public money in commissioning or other ways

So even if companies can provide services of better quality at lower cost to the taxpayer they shouldn't be used? Or are you proposing that the commissioners should be able to award contracts to their mates without any comeback? It is the commissioners who failed here, not Virgin Care.