The FT reports this morning that:
A plan that would have taken the NHS into uncharted territory by inviting external bids to run a deficit-ridden hospital has been put on hold, ensuring that no contest will be launched until after the general election.
Gerrymandering doesn't die. It just morphs. This stinks.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The question is: will Labour pursue this if they win?
I’ve seen nothing from them as yet to indicate that they would not.
Fortunately up here in Scotland we’ve avoided this madness so far, and it could yet become a defining issue in the referendum vote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esV6pGo8UTI
Dr Philippa Whitford is a superb speaker on the subject.
Burnham is saying not
I hope Labour have seen the light….but bearing in mind some of the Labour NHS reforms, I’ll take some convincing.
Maybe you should have a closer look at Hinchinbrooke Hospital before dismissing private intervention.
I have looked at it
It is a complete failure
Circle are losing £15 million a year running it
You call that a success?
For the tax payer it is a great success. They get a £15m subsidy from the private sector. And it seems to be doing well in terms of patient care. I am sure if it was making a profit you would be calling it a bad thing too.
And you think a loss making model is sustainable?
Of course it is not.
Ask why they’re doing it
And you think a loss making model is sustainable?
Of course it is not.
Ask why they’re doing it
Are we speaking specifically of Hinchinbrooke -or- the NHS and overall Welfare State in general?
Privatised health care
Really. What a load of rubbish. Either you have not looked at the accounts or you don’t understand them or you are setting out to deliberately misinform.
After 36 tears I can spot a company needing refunding that is admitting its business model is broken
Ha! And they needed a £4m “under the counter” subsidy (brown envelope?)/from the Department of Health to keep them going after taking over. Same money could have been given to the former NHS Trust, to the same end. Why wasn’t it? Need one ask? The usual “unlevel playing field”, so beloved of our Lords and masters.
I suspect they are investing their income to improve services at which point they will begin to make a profit.
I am not sure if your comment is naive, disingenuous or simply trolling
Richard, you should have another look at Circle’s accounts. It lost £15.2m in 2013 across its entire business, not including Hinchingbrooke.
Cumulative losses at Hinchingbrooke since February 2012 are recorded in the accounts as being £4.1m, booked as recoverable funding (to be recovered from future profits). The accounts note that Circle’s cumulative funding obligation is limited to £5m, beyond which it can terminate the agreement for an exit charge of £2m.
Politely, I call that fantasy accounting
Circle does so little else that it is ahrd to credit those figures as right
Are you calling their accounts fraudulent ?
The allocation of costs in any set of accounts is a deeply subjective issue
They started a 5yr/125M contract with Bedford hospital a month ago..
¨Despite this Circle said it would post a £0.5m to £1m loss at Hinchingbrooke for the year to end March, 2014, as a 9 per cent rise in patient volumes led to an increase in the use of agency staff¨
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/97cdddf2-b0fc-11e3-bbd4-00144feab7de.html#ixzz39p8fstEz
Maybe I won´t need to trek to Addenbrookes now. Although I note that increasing patients does not seem to translate to increasing procedures!
And they needed nearly £30 million of refunding this year to support their losses
Circle owns and runs hospitals in Reading and Bath.
Odd how the website does not include the accounts
Do you mean that you only looked for their report and accounts AFTER you had practically accused them of fraud? This speaks volumes for the quality of your research, Mr Murphy.
I have looked at their accounts for some time
That is why I know of their losses, their need to restructure, the ‘partnership’ because of the limited prospect of profit, the offshore links, the refinancing and much else
It never, ever ceases to amaze me how many will queue up to defend the indefensible, especially to defend private profiteering at public expense.
Are they hoping to buy shares, one wonders?
Meanwhile, in the midst of this discussion about ‘inputs’ Hinchinbrooke gets voted as ‘best hospital’ & 96% of patients would recommend it. (Google will supply the details)
Not quite a complete failure?
Other reports suggest considerable local concern
I might be viewing this wrong. The public need medical services. The hospital provide them. If this company didn’t do it, either the hospital would close or the money found elsewhere. This company is doing well. Hospitals are expensive to set up, they require big investment.
Read the Observer on Sunday
‘Other reports suggest considerable local concern’
Link please
The local press many times
Just use Google
I am not your search engine
Any proof of this?
Many reports in Cambridge area newspapers
And which Cambridge papers would these be?
Certainly not the Cambridge Evening News. Only good reports from them on Hinchingbrooke.
Seems the only people having a problem with Hinchingbrooke are the TUC and you.
And frankly, both the above have relied on inaccurate information or actually manufactured it to support their contentions.
Let the people who rely on the hospital be the judge of what is right for them. And they have.
One quick search showed the Wikipedia page and a catalogue of problems with just one survey showing change despite record deficits
You really need some perspective
And all done by a company losing a fortune
I cant see anything on the Wiki page from this year that shows any challenges at the hospital. It was to be closed, it was saved and now is the best.
It was never closing
Shall we stop being stupid here?
You do keep changing your story. Still no proof of the considerable local concern. You made that up didn’t you?
No evidence in the Cambridge newspapers, so you switched to Wikipedia and an item written by who? An obscure article by the Socialist Health Association is hardly going to convince anyone,
Frankly, you make bald assertions, such as claiming the accounts of a public company are false, no fraudulently manipulated. But as usual no proof.
What really gets me is that you would rather see patients suffer and even die (like Mid-Staf) that admit that there are problems with the NHS and that sometimes these can be solved by the use if . There are too many vested interest in the NHS, like managers paying themselves outrageous salaries and pension pots and cutting vital services to fund their profligacy.
I have referred back to my notes. Press reports were based on a Health Service Journal article. http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/acute-care/hinchingbrooke-falls-again-in-patient-satisfaction-rankings/5049784.article
The essence was that “The hospital has fallen from joint-highest in the area in a patient satisfaction survey to nineteenth out of 46 hospitals trusts across the NHS Midlands and East region in August 2012. This is a “friends and family test” in which patients are asked to say whether they would recommend the trust to friends and family” That’s a quite different perspective from the private sector award you refer to
As for the accounts – you clearly can’t read them.In 2012, the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office were astounded at the level of debt incurred by the Hinchingbrooke hospital franchise. They concluded that it needed to undergo drastic cuts to stay a viable operation. That debt has now been refinanced. £27.5 million was raised in 2014.
So what I say is based on real reports and easy to form conclusions based on a set of account.
What you are offering is a deeply political anti-NHS commentary. The NHS is not perfect. Of course it is not. No human organisation is. It needs to be rid of the internal market, foundation status, CCGs and much more to return to a focus on health care, cutting ridiculous admin and wasted cost for a start. But privatisation is the wrong route.
As the Commonwealth Fund has shown, the NHS is the best healthcare system in the world and one of the cheapest. The model for privatisation is the USA, the most expensive and worst system.
Richard, you’ve quoted the Friends and Family results for Hinchingbrooke in 2012. I’ve just looked up the latest results on NHS Choices. The hospital’s score in the report you linked to was 69: now after two years of Circle management it’s 83 for Inpatient Care and 78 for A&E.
I’ve just re-read the 2012 NAO report. There’s no sense of alarm about it; it reports an in-year deficit of £4.1m to September 2012, consistent with Circle’s accounts. Plainly Circle’s equity fundraising this year is not needed to fund its exposure at Hinchingbrooke, which is limited to £7m, most of which it has already put up.
I’m a strong supporter of the NHS, and I want it to provide the best possible healthcare. The important thing at Hinchingbrooke is that Circle should not cut standards of care in order to make money. I see no sign at all that it is doing that.
Respectfully, this is naive
If survey standards have improved I can’t demy that is welcome
But circle is not making money
This is not a viable model as it stands
And it is not part of an NHS – it is the list odd lottery squared
This is privatisation and we know from onpbservation that this breaks the NHS model if the best health care at the lowest cost
Hinchingbrooke may have needed new management. It did not need what it got
http://www.circleholdingsplc.com/uploads/document/file/52/circle_holdings_annual_report_2013_finalv.pdf
Accounts are here
I have them already
“The allocation of costs in any set of accounts is a deeply subjective issue”
That might be true, but Circle has a management contract at Hinchingbrooke; all the money there goes through NHS accounts. There are no shared costs to be allocated between Hinchingbrooke and other Circle hospitals.
The £4m “subsidy” mentioned by a commentator above arose precisely because the running deficit appeared in NHS accounts. Circle is obliged to make “Franchise Support Payments” to the Trust if it’s running at a loss; the deficit was covered by the NHS pending such a payment.
All this is a matter of public record.
My comment remains wholly accurate and in no need of adjustment
What goes through that account is subjective
If you think otherwise you know nothing about accounting
So presumably every claim you make about a company’s accounts is also highly subjective, despite your claims of objectivity….
All accounts are profoundly subjective
And all opinion is too
That’s why it is opinion
You call yourself an accountant, right?
If that was so, you would know that accounts are NOT “highly subjective”.
As it is, it looks like you are either lying through your teeth or accusing Circle of fraud. Which is it to be?
I am very definitely an accountant – an FCA holding an ICAEW practicing certificate
And accounts are almost wholly subjective
And that is what I said about Circle – it can choose its cost allocation. I said nothing more
It is you who has the difficulty with your absurd claim that accounts are objective. Try reading this http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/73582ce2-167e-11e4-8210-00144feabdc0.html
No government has ever been able to provide decent hospital arrangements. There has always been long waiting lists all my life. The service is always debatable.
There hasn’t been one year when any government have provided me with an excellent service. Not once.
We don’t need debates on the right or wrong. We need real health care now.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/How-quality-of-care-at-Hinchingbrooke-Hospital-has-been-declared-best-in-England-after-it-was-placed-in-hands-of-private-firm-Circle-20140522115615.htm
Maybe you’ve never been really ill. If you have cancer, for example, waiting lists in my recent experience don’t really exist
And if you never think you have had excellent hospital service then frankly there is something wrong with your expectation.
My last waiting list in 2009 was ten months.
Its really difficult when some doctors don’t speak English. Never seeing the same doctor twice is also a problem.
If your waiting list was 10 months the treatment was not urgent
I do not appreciated what looks like racism
And the reason for seeing more than one doctor is to make sure mistakes are spotted. Be grateful
“No government has ever been able to provide decent hospital arrangements”. That is simply because no government has spent enough to meet all needs.
I notice that the award to Hinchinbrooke Hospital was given by a company owned by Capita. Somehow I do not have much faith in that, but doubtless the trolls on here will think it’s good.
Well spotted
Thanks
I think we should remember that the TUC and Unite are substantial contributors to the financial well being of Tax Reasearch . What we are seeing is merely a repetition of the nonsense sprouted by them with regard to Hinchingbrooke Hospital.
Candidly, Tax Research is not going to bite that feeds it.
I am proud to work with the TUC and Unite
Both work for the preservation of strong public services staffed by fairly paid employees in this country so that all can access them irrespective of their means and know they are not exploring others when doing so
If you have problems with that then the problem is all yours