NHS is very good value

[Richard Barrett]

Circle Health is registered in the British Virgin Islands and owned by a hedge fund operation based in Jersey and therefore pays no corporation tax; nevertheless it has been running Hinchingbrooke so far at a loss, which presumably its shareholders aren't going to tolerate for ever. Additionally it is one of the worst NHS trusts in the country as regards bullying and exploiting its staff, leaving them short-handed, not providing training and support, and indulging in dodgy practices as regards the reporting of harmful incidents. Also, the "friends and family test" by which it claims to have a high level of customer, I mean patient, satisfaction has been heavily criticised as open to manipulation and abuse. So the kindest thing to say about it is that its "success" is unproven.

[Beef Oven!]

Circle Health is registered in the British Virgin Islands and owned by a hedge fund operation based in Jersey and therefore pays no corporation tax; nevertheless it has been running Hinchingbrooke so far at a loss, which presumably its shareholders aren't going to tolerate for ever. Additionally it is one of the worst NHS trusts in the country as regards bullying and exploiting its staff, leaving them short-handed, not providing training and support, and indulging in dodgy practices as regards the reporting of harmful incidents. Also, the "friends and family test" by which it claims to have a high level of customer, I mean patient, satisfaction has been heavily criticised as open to manipulation and abuse. So the kindest thing to say about it is that its "success" is unproven.

Where to start?

Well I'd agree with you at once that the 'success' of Circle Health's management of this previously failing hospital must be proven over a longer timespan than the two years they have been managing it.

But the improvements are incontestable. The CHKS awards are viewed highly by the NHS and the Department Of Health and they have been undertaken for 25 years.

For Hichingbrooke to be acknowledged as top hospital for care, edging out good quality hospitals Guy's & St Thomas' and Chelsea & Westminster is a major achievement for a previously failing trust.

The prime concern should be quality of service, patient care and experience, not ideology. If you ignore this success, it feels like you would be happy with hospitals that fit your world view, rather than the experience of the patients.

Much of what you say about the staff issues is taken from the annual staff survey information. Circle Health have been managing the hospital since 2012 - I know you have not checked further back on this 'legacy'.

It is true that the trades unions have vehemently opposed Circle Health managing this previously failing hospital, and this will reflect in the recent staff survey.

Seems the hospital works in terms of quality of care. They just need to try to placate the trades union movement and faux-left commentators.

[amateur51]

Where to start?

Well I'd agree with you at once that the 'success' of Circle Health's management of this previously failing hospital must be proven over a longer timespan than the two years they have been managing it.

But the improvements are incontestable. The CHKS awards are viewed highly by the NHS and the Department Of Health and they have been undertaken for 25 years.

For Hichingbrooke to be acknowledged as top hospital for care, edging out good quality hospitals Guy's & St Thomas' and Chelsea & Westminster is a major achievement for a previously failing trust.

The prime concern should be quality of service, patient care and experience, not ideology. If you ignore this success, it feels like you would be happy with hospitals that fit your world view, rather than the experience of the patients.

Much of what you say about the staff issues is taken from the annual staff survey information. Circle Health have been managing the hospital since 2012 - I know you have not checked further back on this 'legacy'.

It is true that the trades unions have vehemently opposed Circle Health managing this previously failing hospital, and this will reflect in the recent staff survey.

However,

Oh dear, a severe case of "I see no ships"

[Richard Barrett]

Quite so, amateur51. But even if BO's claims weren't arguable, which they are (especially given the reasons why this hospital prior to privatisation was deemed to have "failed"), there is always the question of how long the hedge fund managers and shareholders are going to allow it to continue running at a loss.

And please, BO, try to avoid making blatantly ideologically motivated assertions and then claiming they have nothing to do with ideology; this is almost as tiresome as delivering yourself of a stream of capitalist rhetoric and then demanding that the reply contain no "Marxist rhetoric".

[Beef Oven!]

And please, BO, try to avoid making blatantly ideologically motivated assertions and then claiming they have nothing to do with ideology; this is almost as tiresome as delivering yourself of a stream of capitalist rhetoric and then demanding that the reply contain no "Marxist rhetoric".

Well that's what I'm trying to say to you!

We were almost having a half-sensible exchange, back there.

[Richard Barrett]

Look at it this way. Assuming that private and public concerns are going to be able to run things like utilities, health and transport with comparable efficiancy, and of course there's no law of nature which says it's one way or the other, one of them is subject to the greed of shareholders and fund managers, the endemic capitalist boom/bust cycle, and the private sector's lack of concern for employees except for extracting the maximum work from them for the minimum expenditure; while the other is not to anything like the same extent subject to these things. Now, as a socialist, I would go a lot further than this, but isn't that enough?

[teamsaint]

Look at it this way. Assuming that private and public concerns are going to be able to run things like utilities, health and transport with comparable efficiancy, and of course there's no law of nature which says it's one way or the other, one of them is subject to the greed of shareholders and fund managers, the endemic capitalist boom/bust cycle, and the private sector's lack of concern for employees except for extracting the maximum work from them for the minimum expenditure; while the other is not to anything like the same extent subject to these things. Now, as a socialist, I would go a lot further than this, but isn't that enough?

I think that is a fair summary. Additionally, I would suggest that on admin costs, (I know I am banging on about them, but they are relatively easy to pin down and also very significant), perhaps we should look back to see what we can learn from a time when costs were 30% of what they are now.

[Beef Oven!]

I think that is a fair summary.

Of what?

[teamsaint]

Of what?

of what he was summarising.

[Beef Oven!]

of what he was summarising.

Hmm.

[Richard Barrett]

Of why you don't have to be a Marxist to see through the false promises of privatisation. As I said, even three quarters of kippers apparently realise this.

[teamsaint]

Hmm.

alright, of arguments about why public sector management of the NHS ought to be a default position.

[Beef Oven!]

alright, of arguments about why public sector management of the NHS ought to be a default position.

Hmm.

[teamsaint]

Hmm.

Is it just me, or can anybody else hear a hum.....

[Beef Oven!]

Is it just me, or can anybody else hear a hum.....

4'33