Is Our NHS in Safe Hands?

[Anna B 1,401]

29 minutes ago, *_ash_* said:

This is like groundhog day.

 

Why not just resurrect the same thread from the last election, or the one before, or the one before that? It's all the same posts Anna.

 

 

You've watched the programme then? I'm trying to encourage people to see it that's all. There's really nothing to discuss until you do.

[Anna B 1,401]

39 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Management consultants are another big drain on the NHS

 

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/nhs-wasting-millions-management-consultants-1243088

Yes. I liked the comment on the programme;

 

'Doctors have lost confidence, they outsource consultations all the time yet they are the ones with the expertise.

It's like a doctor wants to know the time.

The doctor hires a consultant.

The consultant asks the doctor if he can borrow the doctor's watch. 

The consultant takes the watch, reads it, and tells the doctor the time.

He gives the doctor his watch back and charges him £1,000 for his work.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Anna B

[DerbyTup 10]

9 hours ago, Anna B said:

Corbyn wasn't in it.

 

It used to be that the private and NHS worked side by side often in the same hospital.  All the profit that was made from private patients was ploughed back into the NHS to subsidise it. It worked quite well. 

 

Now the private side supports shareholders not the NHS, and takes money and expertise out of the NHS rather than put it in.

 

Take the proposed 'GP on Hand' (a phone app for GP consultations.) Matt Hancock (Health minister) is a big fan. It attracts young people, (ie under 35s) in the London area and south east. You have to join and it's quite expensive, you are then taken off the NHS GPs register, so they lose funding for every one that joins . The older patient, perhaps less trusting of apps, don't like it and stay with their NHS GP. But it's the  older patients who tend to need more treatment and are therefore more time consuming and expensive, but the GPs practice has less money. Some consultations are done by robots not doctors. Independent trials also found out that phone consultations are not as safe and reliable, but the Babylon company claims they are 100%. They got this result by using a very small cohort of patients, all young and with obvious ailments to pass the test and be able to make the claim. When faced with genuine, more complex cases they fell well short. You can guess which set of statistics they use in their advertising. 

 

Just one example of privatisation. Hancock wants to roll this out nationwide at great expense, but it will starve the NHS of funds. Is that a good idea?

We're moving on to a slightly different topic now.  That's o.k., but my original response was about Corbyn misrepresenting/lying about the plan to sell of the NHS to the Americans.  Which is what I believe he did.  And I provided some factual content as to what the report referred to.  I'm glad we're not disagreeing on that point any further.

 

I don't know of a time when all the profits from private healthcare monies were ploughed back into the NHS.  That sounds unlikely to me, but I'd be interested to know how that worked, or could work in the future?  Because (most) private enterprises are owned by shareholders and shareholders need paying from the profits.  Of course, there are "not-for-profit" private enterprises but even here, you have to make a "surplus" (another word for "profit" in a not-for-profit" organisation) to be able to survive.

 

We are now moving on to talk about a "GP on Hand" app, as an example of privatisation?  O.K. - that's one very specific thing, which is part of a much greater plan to use digital technology to give patients greater access to medical care.  I think there are issues with this particular app and you've identified what many of them are.  It is, as you correctly say, something that is more likely to be used by young people.  I think the two biggest concerns arising it from it are patient safety and funding.  I think digital technology has an important role in the delivery of healthcare - because it can help to with capacity issues.  That's not an endorsement of this particular app and it's not to say that digital technology should be something that only private companies offer.  There are many digital innovations and things like tele-medicine, which can be integrated into the NHS to improve access to medicine for patients and help reduce some of the strain on the system.  This may be made possible through private/NHS partnerships - and I've absolutely no issue with that - in fact I'd go further and say it's essential.    

 

It doesn't surprise me one iota that "trial results" were based on a very small cohort of patients, relatively young and fit.  You make it sound like this is a deliberate attempt to hoodwink someone.  Maybe it was?- but if so, it obviously isn't working because anyone can see through that.  What I do know is that in the area of medicine that I'm involved with - we have the same issues.  Even large scale clinical trials do not yield a patient population that is representative of the actual patients who will most benefit in real life.  The reasons for that are many, but major ones are strict recruitment criteria and difficulties in meeting that criteria.  So, in general terms, the patients recruited into clinical trials are fitter and healthier than the population for whom the medicine may have the greatest utility.  It is an issue throughout medicine.  It's not just something relating to one app from a private company.  

 

Whether we like it or not, private healthcare has a role to play and the NHS needs to look how it could benefit from the same - and the general public need to accept that this is ultimately for their benefit and "private" doesn't have to be a dirty word.

 

 

 

 

[Guest makapaka]

28 minutes ago, DerbyTup said:

We're moving on to a slightly different topic now.  That's o.k., but my original response was about Corbyn misrepresenting/lying about the plan to sell of the NHS to the Americans.  Which is what I believe he did.  And I provided some factual content as to what the report referred to.  I'm glad we're not disagreeing on that point any further.

 

I don't know of a time when all the profits from private healthcare monies were ploughed back into the NHS.  That sounds unlikely to me, but I'd be interested to know how that worked, or could work in the future?  Because (most) private enterprises are owned by shareholders and shareholders need paying from the profits.  Of course, there are "not-for-profit" private enterprises but even here, you have to make a "surplus" (another word for "profit" in a not-for-profit" organisation) to be able to survive.

 

We are now moving on to talk about a "GP on Hand" app, as an example of privatisation?  O.K. - that's one very specific thing, which is part of a much greater plan to use digital technology to give patients greater access to medical care.  I think there are issues with this particular app and you've identified what many of them are.  It is, as you correctly say, something that is more likely to be used by young people.  I think the two biggest concerns arising it from it are patient safety and funding.  I think digital technology has an important role in the delivery of healthcare - because it can help to with capacity issues.  That's not an endorsement of this particular app and it's not to say that digital technology should be something that only private companies offer.  There are many digital innovations and things like tele-medicine, which can be integrated into the NHS to improve access to medicine for patients and help reduce some of the strain on the system.  This may be made possible through private/NHS partnerships - and I've absolutely no issue with that - in fact I'd go further and say it's essential.    

 

It doesn't surprise me one iota that "trial results" were based on a very small cohort of patients, relatively young and fit.  You make it sound like this is a deliberate attempt to hoodwink someone.  Maybe it was?- but if so, it obviously isn't working because anyone can see through that.  What I do know is that in the area of medicine that I'm involved with - we have the same issues.  Even large scale clinical trials do not yield a patient population that is representative of the actual patients who will most benefit in real life.  The reasons for that are many, but major ones are strict recruitment criteria and difficulties in meeting that criteria.  So, in general terms, the patients recruited into clinical trials are fitter and healthier than the population for whom the medicine may have the greatest utility.  It is an issue throughout medicine.  It's not just something relating to one app from a private company.  

 

Whether we like it or not, private healthcare has a role to play and the NHS needs to look how it could benefit from the same - and the general public need to accept that this is ultimately for their benefit and "private" doesn't have to be a dirty word.

 

 

 

 

If what your advocating is using private businesses as a resource to provide health care which is free for everyone then providing that service is efficiently procured I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

 

but I don’t think that’s what people are worried about.

Edited December 20, 2019 by makapaka

[Anna B 1,401]

4 hours ago, DerbyTup said:

We're moving on to a slightly different topic now.  That's o.k., but my original response was about Corbyn misrepresenting/lying about the plan to sell of the NHS to the Americans.  Which is what I believe he did.  And I provided some factual content as to what the report referred to.  I'm glad we're not disagreeing on that point any further.

 

I don't know of a time when all the profits from private healthcare monies were ploughed back into the NHS.  That sounds unlikely to me, but I'd be interested to know how that worked, or could work in the future?  Because (most) private enterprises are owned by shareholders and shareholders need paying from the profits.  Of course, there are "not-for-profit" private enterprises but even here, you have to make a "surplus" (another word for "profit" in a not-for-profit" organisation) to be able to survive.

 

We are now moving on to talk about a "GP on Hand" app, as an example of privatisation?  O.K. - that's one very specific thing, which is part of a much greater plan to use digital technology to give patients greater access to medical care.  I think there are issues with this particular app and you've identified what many of them are.  It is, as you correctly say, something that is more likely to be used by young people.  I think the two biggest concerns arising it from it are patient safety and funding.  I think digital technology has an important role in the delivery of healthcare - because it can help to with capacity issues.  That's not an endorsement of this particular app and it's not to say that digital technology should be something that only private companies offer.  There are many digital innovations and things like tele-medicine, which can be integrated into the NHS to improve access to medicine for patients and help reduce some of the strain on the system.  This may be made possible through private/NHS partnerships - and I've absolutely no issue with that - in fact I'd go further and say it's essential.    

 

It doesn't surprise me one iota that "trial results" were based on a very small cohort of patients, relatively young and fit.  You make it sound like this is a deliberate attempt to hoodwink someone.  Maybe it was?- but if so, it obviously isn't working because anyone can see through that.  What I do know is that in the area of medicine that I'm involved with - we have the same issues.  Even large scale clinical trials do not yield a patient population that is representative of the actual patients who will most benefit in real life.  The reasons for that are many, but major ones are strict recruitment criteria and difficulties in meeting that criteria.  So, in general terms, the patients recruited into clinical trials are fitter and healthier than the population for whom the medicine may have the greatest utility.  It is an issue throughout medicine.  It's not just something relating to one app from a private company.  

 

Whether we like it or not, private healthcare has a role to play and the NHS needs to look how it could benefit from the same - and the general public need to accept that this is ultimately for their benefit and "private" doesn't have to be a dirty word.

 

 

 

 

I believe that was the way it worked up until the late 70s. It still exists in some parts of the NHS. When I had my eyes done, (refractive lens  exchange,) by Mr Edwards at Royal Hallamshire Hospital private eye clinic, there was a notice saying that all profits were returned to the general NHS eye clinic. It cost approx. £6,000. All spectacles no longer needed were also donated to hospitals in Africa. That seems fair enough to me.

 

The NHS changed when Thatcher introduced 'internal competition,' which is also when the introduction of managers took off and admin went up alarmingly. According to the TV programme administration costs went up from £5 (per head?) to £25.   

Edited December 20, 2019 by Anna B

[the_bloke 17]

4 hours ago, makapaka said:

If what your advocating is using private businesses as a resource to provide health care which is free for everyone then providing that service is efficiently procured I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

 

but I don’t think that’s what people are worried about.

That is exactly what happens now. In parts of the NHS, health care and supporting services is carried out by private business. Like emptying the bins is outsourced by the council. It's not a bad thing at all.

 

The issue is that people don't understand how this system currently works and as soon as they see a mention of private concerns performing roles in the NHS they think the NHS will stop being free at the point of service because they desperately want to read it like that.

[jaffa1 10]

Last week I went with a friend to Hallamshire Hospital , they needed some blood tests then had to find the x-ray department for a hip x-ray. 

I thought we would be in there for at least 2 hours, in total it took 35 minutes, that's  not bad at all and very surprising. 

[onewheeldave 22]

6 hours ago, the_bloke said:

That is exactly what happens now. In parts of the NHS, health care and supporting services is carried out by private business. Like emptying the bins is outsourced by the council. It's not a bad thing at all.

 

The issue is that people don't understand how this system currently works and as soon as they see a mention of private concerns performing roles in the NHS they think the NHS will stop being free at the point of service because they desperately want to read it like that.

But a lot of people do understand how things like PFI contracts are leeching the NHS of millions and that there is no end of private and corporate interest in coming up with more innovative schemes to extract as much cash from the NHS as they possibly can.

 

So yes- not ALL private involvement is a problem, but a lot of it most certainly is, and it is perfectly appropriate that people remain very suspicious about private company interest, because all those companies are motivated by, is profit.

[tinfoilhat 11]

7 hours ago, the_bloke said:

That is exactly what happens now. In parts of the NHS, health care and supporting services is carried out by private business. Like emptying the bins is outsourced by the council. It's not a bad thing at all.

 

The issue is that people don't understand how this system currently works and as soon as they see a mention of private concerns performing roles in the NHS they think the NHS will stop being free at the point of service because they desperately want to read it like that.

But sodexo do the "food". I'm not saying NHS food was great back in the dim and distant past but it couldn't worse!

[truman 10]

9 hours ago, Anna B said:

I believe that was the way it worked up until the late 70s. It still exists in some parts of the NHS. When I had my eyes done, (refractive lens  exchange,) by Mr Edwards at Royal Hallamshire Hospital private eye clinic, there was a notice saying that all profits were returned to the general NHS eye clinic. It cost approx. £6,000. All spectacles no longer needed were also donated to hospitals in Africa. That seems fair enough to me.

 

The NHS changed when Thatcher introduced 'internal competition,' which is also when the introduction of managers took off and admin went up alarmingly. According to the TV programme administration costs went up from £5 (per head?) to £25.   

"Profits" can be manipulated..ask any self employed person 

[*_ash_* 88]

22 hours ago, Anna B said:

You've watched the programme then? I'm trying to encourage people to see it that's all. There's really nothing to discuss until you do.

You've convinced me over the years that media is all right-wing nonsense. In this thread, you call it a 'documentary' (though with the title, doesn't sound too impartial to me 'The Dirty War in the NHS'); an important film; public information dynamite. You've not sold it me. What you've written about it is the same things as usual. And like the post you quoted me, it's groundhog day. Just look at all the elections in this forum. Same people same things. Look at the threads in 2010 when Cameron won. The country was finished. Still here now.

 

Have you watched any of the university lectures that I shared with you? I find these a bit more impartial.

[Halibut 12]

2 hours ago, *_ash_* said:

You've convinced me over the years that media is all right-wing nonsense. In this thread, you call it a 'documentary' (though with the title, doesn't sound too impartial to me 'The Dirty War in the NHS'); an important film; public information dynamite. You've not sold it me. What you've written about it is the same things as usual. And like the post you quoted me, it's groundhog day. Just look at all the elections in this forum. Same people same things. Look at the threads in 2010 when Cameron won. The country was finished. Still here now.

 

Have you watched any of the university lectures that I shared with you? I find these a bit more impartial.

Still here now for sure - but look at the gap between rich and poor, numbers of children living in poverty, homelessness, foodbanks...waiting times in A and E.

You're an intelligent man - are these facts giving you confidence that the NHS is safe in the hands of this government?