First ever bankrupt NHS Trust paid £10,000,000 to Tory donors!

[wednesday1]

The Green Benches

 

by Dr Éoin Clarke (PhD)

Saturday, 27 October 2012

The 1st ever bankrupted NHS Trust has paid £10,000,000 to Tory donors' agency staff & private consultants this year.

 

South London Healthcare Trust will not exist this time next year, because it has been declared bankrupt. I want to show you the real reason why it came to this before Jeremy Hunt spins you a pack of lies on Monday morning when a report recommending the breakup of SLHT is published. I have reviewed every penny spent by the Foundation Trust in the last 12 months. It is my view that South London Healthcare Trust is in economic trouble because it has paid £10 million in the last year to Tory Donors

 

In the last year alone SLHT has paid Medacs £4.1 million in 865 separate payments for medical agency staff. The firm, Medacs, is part of Impellam Group which is 57% owned by Lord Ashcroft's family. Ashcroft is the number one Tory Donor of all time having given more than £5 million to the party. Medacs often charge more than £800 per day to supply 1 agency staff member. On some occasions, they charged more than £50,000 for an agency staff member at a time. You can view every one of those 865 Medacs payments (here). Paying £800 per day for agency staff is a one way ticket to economic ruin, and the Tories should be ashamed that their donor in chief had a hand in the downfall of South London Healthcare Trust.

 

The above graph shows the money spent by South London Healthcare Trust on private consultants in the last year. Nearly £3 million of this was to PriceWaterhouseCoopers who have also donated to the Tory Party. Ernst & Young, as well as KPMG, also feature on the list of consultancy firms benefiting from SHLT's demise having received more than £1 million between them. Not to be outdone McKinsey & Co. were the main beneficiaries of a £2 million deal to examine the finances of SHLT. Remember, McKinsey's senior partner financed David Cameron's leadership bid to take over the Tories. You can see every penny spent on Consultancy in the last year from this link (here).

 

South London Health Trust became the first ever NHS Trust to be placed in administration (de facto bankruptcy) in the history of the NHS. A report due for publication this Monday will recommend the break up of the NHS Trust and hand various pieces of it to the Trusts in the surrounding area. Lewisham A & E is also due to be recommended for closure in the report (see here). Check out this brilliant website set up to try and stop Lewisham A&E being closed down (here). The stupidity of shutting Lewisham A&E is further heightened by the fact that it has only just undergone a £12m refit. Shutting services is the wrong solution, the Foundation Trust is wasting millions of pounds in other ways that if solved would negate the need to shut Lewisham A&E.

 

The South London area in general has been ravaged by Tory privatisation and closures since they came to power. Remember, they handed 7 hospitals in Surrey to Virgin Care and they are planning to close the A & E Ward at Epsom & St Helier Trust. The future of St Helier Hospital is also in severe doubt after its plans to merge with St Peter's Hospital Trust were halted yesterday depsite widespread support (here).

 

Much of this pain could be avoided if the Tories stopped cutting NHS staff and halted the use of private consultancies. The collective £10 million spent in one year, in one NHS Trust, is the real reason South London Healthcare Trust is on its knees.

 

 

Jesus, what do you make of this?

[Rupert_Baehr]

Do you think the MEDACS staff (or anybody else, for that matter) should work for nothing?

 

I appreciate your anger, but who runs the bankrupt South London Healthcare Trust? - How the hell did a bunch of incompetents get the job? Who gave them the job?

 

Why does the NHS not employ all its staff? (Serious question!)

 

I came to the UK (as an immigrant) in 1968. Initially, I used the NHS. Then my employer provided healthcare (their choice.) Since then, I've used employer-provided healthcare.

 

Since 1969 (apart from a 17-month period) the doctors who treated me were salaried employees. They were under no pressure to 'get me out of the door' nor could they make 'a few bob more' by over-prescribing or recommending unnecessary treatments.

 

It suited my employers. - They thought it was the most efficient way to provide healthcare. I did not use the NHS (in fact - particularly in the area of dentistry - I was forbidden to do so.)

 

So who were these enlightened employers?

 

Well, until 1988, I was employed by Her Majesty's Government. - NHS dentistry was good enough for you - but HMG weren't prepared to risk me with NHS dentists.

 

The doctors I saw were good. They were very good. - But they were no better than the doctors you see under the NHS.

 

They were not, however, given 'targets' or 'patient quotas', nor were they encouraged to 'cut corners' to stay within budgets.

 

I don't like the Labour Party (I don't like the Conservatives either) so I don't want to make this into a 'party political issue'.

 

I like the idea of a NHS (though I do accept it will have limitations - it can't do everything.)

 

Why does the government not set a pay rate for nurses (there will be bands and grades, depending on skills and experiences) and a similar pay rate for doctors (again, with bands and grades.)

 

Let all nurses be employed by a central agency and let all doctors be employed by the same agency. Nurses and doctors would be re-assigned to areas where they were needed (should there be a need to re-assign personnel) but such re-assignments would be rewarded financially and moving costs would be paid.

 

All medical facilities (clinics, surgeries and hospitals) would be built and funded by the government.

 

(If you - or anybody else - want to set up in competition, go ahead.)

 

(What I'm suggesting, of course, is a sort of civilian version of the Air Force and Army medical services.)

 

It suited the government - and it suited me, too. - I received pretty good medical care.

 

Why doesn't the NHS do it?

[SevenRivers]

The OP is factually incorrect. They didn't pay money to Tory donors. They paid money to companies for the provision of services in a usual customer-supplier arrangement. If the Trust were stupid enough to pay over the odds, that's the fault of their procurement processes.

[ricgem2002]

The OP is factually incorrect. They didn't pay money to Tory donors. They paid money to companies for the provision of services in a usual customer-supplier arrangement. If the Trust were stupid enough to pay over the odds, that's the fault of their procurement processes.

maybe they were tories helping other tories out

[Rupert_Baehr]

The OP is factually incorrect. They didn't pay money to Tory donors. They paid money to companies for the provision of services in a usual customer-supplier arrangement. If the Trust were stupid enough to pay over the odds, that's the fault of their procurement processes.

 

 

Almost. I suggest it's probably the fault of the incompetent people who ran the procurement process.

 

We have no information regarding the procurement process itself.

 

It appears that the people who ran the process didn't monitor it, nor did they correct errors or shortcomings as they occurred.

 

Therefore it is reasonable (IMO) to blame those people.

 

Managers who can't manage.

[JFKvsNixon]

Why does the NHS not employ all its staff? (Serious question!)

 

Probably because it's cheaper to fill temporary jobs with people that WAY. Even though the NHS may pay more on the initial wages the NHS doesn't have to pay for the additional benefits such as pension, annual leave etc.

 

I came to the UK (as an immigrant) in 1968. Initially, I used the NHS. Then my employer provided healthcare (their choice.) Since then, I've used employer-provided healthcare.

 

Since 1969 (apart from a 17-month period) the doctors who treated me were salaried employees. They were under no pressure to 'get me out of the door' nor could they make 'a few bob more' by over-prescribing or recommending unnecessary treatments.

 

The only pressure to get people out the door is the the pressure to get more people into the hospital to treat them. I am sorry if I misunderstood you but NHS doctors do not get paid any extra for prescribing drugs or offering any treatments.

 

Why does the government not set a pay rate for nurses (there will be bands and grades, depending on skills and experiences) and a similar pay rate for doctors (again, with bands and grades.)

 

There is a national pay scale, google agenda for change; it was implemented around 5 years ago. There is talk of abandoning it in favour of a locally negotiated pay scales.

 

Let all nurses be employed by a central agency and let all doctors be employed by the same agency. Nurses and doctors would be re-assigned to areas where they were needed (should there be a need to re-assign personnel) but such re-assignments would be rewarded financially and moving costs would be paid.

 

The problem here is that the specific areas of nursing have their own individual skills that take a while to become competent at. Even within their own areas, like surgery it is difficult to switch specialities at a moments notice and as such a surgical urology nurse will need training and supervision before they would be competent to work on a neuro surgical ward.

 

All medical facilities (clinics, surgeries and hospitals) would be built and funded by the government.

 

(If you - or anybody else - want to set up in competition, go ahead.)

 

(What I'm suggesting, of course, is a sort of civilian version of the Air Force and Army medical services.)

 

It suited the government - and it suited me, too. - I received pretty good medical care.

 

Why doesn't the NHS do it?

 

Funnily enough, the last operation I had was carried out by a Royal Navy surgeon in an NHS hospital, it was in 1996 though.

[alchresearch]

The OP is factually incorrect.

 

I note it's also a Dr Éoin Clarke blog rant rather than an official news story.

[Alcoblog]

Although I'm not a Tory (or any other denomination, come to think of it), I'd be pretty interested in donating my spleen if the price is right.

In fact, I'd go so far as to offer a 'buy one, get one free' special offer for maybe say ... spleen and six foot of large intestine for the knock down price of £1,350.00. I might even chuck in a bucket of AB positive ( ... see what I did there!) for a packet of Hob-nobs and a cappuccino.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Originally Posted by Rupert_Baehr

Why does the NHS not employ all its staff? (Serious question!)

Probably because it's cheaper to fill temporary jobs with people that WAY. Even though the NHS may pay more on the initial wages the NHS doesn't have to pay for the additional benefits such as pension, annual leave etc.

 

I acept your answer because you are a poster on this forum. If I was an MP asking the question in the house on behalf of a constituent, that answer would be totally unacceptable. (I've no doubt that you can understand why.) AFAIK, when the NHS was set up, there were no caveats concerning 'doing it on the cheap'. When did it become NHS Policy (and who wrote that policy) to do everything 'on the cheap'? - I appreciate that the NHS has limited funding, but I wonder how many of its clients are aware that they may be being treated by a part-timer who has little or no interest in their medical care?

 

You wouldn't expect part-timers who get no holiday pay, no pension and no annual leave to be 'devoted to their patients', would you?

 

(Is it really that bad?)

 

I came to the UK (as an immigrant) in 1968. Initially, I used the NHS. Then my employer provided healthcare (their choice.) Since then, I've used employer-provided healthcare.

 

Since 1969 (apart from a 17-month period) the doctors who treated me were salaried employees. They were under no pressure to 'get me out of the door' nor could they make 'a few bob more' by over-prescribing or recommending unnecessary treatments.

 

The only pressure to get people out the door is the the pressure to get more people into the hospital to treat them. I am sorry if I misunderstood you but NHS doctors do not get paid any extra for prescribing drugs or offering any treatments.[/Quote]

 

I'm aware of that (I was thinking of a reply I was going to make to another post in another thread which suggested that doctors in the US over-prescribed and over-tested - using 'CYA' medicine rather than 'best practice' - mea culpa, I clouded the issue.

 

I am, however, aware (because I have a number of friends who are GPs in the UK)[and this was the point I intended to make] that GPs may be tempted (or put under pressure) to provide diagnoses 'by rote' because they do not have time to investigate each complaint in depth.

 

Why does the government not set a pay rate for nurses (there will be bands and grades, depending on skills and experiences) and a similar pay rate for doctors (again, with bands and grades.)

 

There is a national pay scale, google agenda for change; it was implemented around 5 years ago. There is talk of abandoning it in favour of a locally negotiated pay scales.[/Quote]

 

I'm aware of that. IMO, such a move would cause massive harm to the NHS.

 

Let all nurses be employed by a central agency and let all doctors be employed by the same agency. Nurses and doctors would be re-assigned to areas where they were needed (should there be a need to re-assign personnel) but such re-assignments would be rewarded financially and moving costs would be paid.

 

The problem here is that the specific areas of nursing have their own individual skills that take a while to become competent at. Even within their own areas, like surgery it is difficult to switch specialities at a moments notice and as such a surgical urology nurse will need training and supervision before they would be competent to work on a neuro surgical ward.[/Quote]

 

I'm not a nurse nor am I medically qualified, but [unfortunately] I've spoken to a number of nurses, each trained in different areas, over the past few years. (The last year has been particularly difficult and I've seen more highly-specialised nurses than I would've hoped to see in a lifetime.)

 

When I was in the care of Royal Air Force Nurses, they didn't have a problem differentiating between neuro, orthopaedic, ob-gyn or any other specialities. I'm glad to say. - I went into hospital for an liver biopsy and I didn't get a C-section.

 

If one (at that time fairly large) organisation can manage differnet nursing specialities, why can't the NHS?

 

All medical facilities (clinics, surgeries and hospitals) would be built and funded by the government.

 

(If you - or anybody else - want to set up in competition, go ahead.)

 

(What I'm suggesting, of course, is a sort of civilian version of the Air Force and Army medical services.)

 

It suited the government - and it suited me, too. - I received pretty good medical care.

 

Why doesn't the NHS do it?

 

Funnily enough, the last operation I had was carried out by a Royal Navy surgeon in an NHS hospital, it was in 1996 though.

[alchresearch]

This is all down to PFIs - something Labour introduced.

 

Even the Tories said they were poor value for money - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14574059

 

103 PFI deals were struck by Labour for the NHS with a combined value of £11.4 billion/ By the time that they are paid off, they will have cost more than £65 billion. These are the same schemes that Andy Burnham said in 2007 were “the right schemes and offer value for money."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9356622/Labours-PFI-landmines-continue-to-explode-in-the-NHS.html

 

I've seen first hand how much money has been blown on schools, and the consultants.

 

And this is why the country's finances are in such a poor state.