Tag Archives: Monitor

Impending Chaos at Private Hospitals? A First Glimpse of One Possible Effect of Monitor’s Regulation’s

Jeremy-Hunt

This is a story of my recent experience of how a private hospital is coping with a sudden influx of NHS patients, due to the recent changes to healthcare in England. The personal account comes towards the end so please bear with me…

 We’re all too nauseatingly familiar by now with Jeremy Hunt’s ‘NHS is a disaster’ discourse with its characterisation of the whole service as one on the edge of collapse. According to this story A&E departments are in chaos, GP’s are lazy, hospitals are dirty, inefficient and badly managed. Waiting rooms are overflowing with people having to wait ages to be seen and nursing staff are dismissive of their needs. And the food’s terrible.

In contrast to this picture of medical Armageddon he paints a picture of private hospitals as clean, comfortable, well maintained places where patients are treated efficiently and with extraordinary care and attention; medical care is exemplary and they don’t have to wait around for ages to be seen. Oh, and the food is top quality.

images (2)  On 1st April this year, as we know, new regulations came into effect as a result of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Under this new regulatory regime NHS foundation trusts must comply with the terms of the provider licence. The licence replaces the terms of authorisation under which trusts were previously granted foundation trust status. The Act  gives Monitor concurrent powers with the Office of Fair Trading to apply competition law in the health care sector in England and the terms of the new licences require health care providers to abide by a number of stringent regulations that are designed to ensure they don’t engage in ‘anti-competitive’ behaviour.

0_0_393_http-__offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk_News_PG_89708F60-BFC9-851D-3EF48E898E5E2E69    The government sees these licence conditions as powerful incentives for improving the quality of care provided to patients. This is an important point to note since running throughout Jeremy Hunt’s discourse on the NHS is his concept of care quality and how its NOT being achieved across the NHS with the implication that its the delivery system that’s ultimately at fault, with the corresponding implication that a different service delivery system – private healthcare – would produce better results.

email-front-cover_0         When you read the licence conditions it becomes clear that the ONLY definition of ‘improving quality for patients’ that can be found within this document is ‘encouraging competition between providers’. Even when it talks of integrated care which demands different providers working together to provide a complete care package for patients, the need for these co-operating entities to maintain competition between themselves is still a licence requirement. This is clearly contradictory. The guidelines say this,

“With careful design therefore, many models for the delivery of integrated care can be implemented in a way that does not reduce competition between providers.”

And

“The licensee shall not:

a) enter into or maintain any agreement or other arrangement which has the object or which has (or would be likely to have) the effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition in the provision of health care services for the purposes of the NHS, or

b) engage in any other conduct which has (or would be likely to have) the effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition in the provision of health care services for the purposes of the NHS,”

It seems to me that it’s likely to need a hell of a lot of ‘careful design’ if different providers wanting to integrate their services by entering into co-operative contracts are going to avoid being in breach of their licence and thus at risk of the sanctions that Monitor can impose for such a breach – loss of that licence being one of them.

nhspatients       I now want to turn to another section of the licence conditions known as ‘Choice and Competition: Condition C1: The right of patients to make choices’. This is what it says,

“Choice and Competition – Condition C1: The right of patients to make choices This condition protects patients’ right to choose between providers by obliging licensees to make information available, to ensure that any information or advice provided is not misleading and to act in a fair way where patients have a choice of provider. This condition applies wherever patients have a choice under the NHS Constitution or a choice that has been conferred locally by commissioners. It also prohibits licensees from receiving or offering inducements to refer patients or commission services.

This condition prevents a licensee from entering into or maintaining agreements that have the object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition to the extent that it is against the interests of health care users. It also prohibits the licensee from engaging in other conduct which has (or is likely to have) the effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition to the extent that it is against the interests of health care users.”

Again it can be seen how the regulations once more conflate the interests of patients with the existence of competition between providers. In a fully public NHS you could imagine an element of competition based on quality of service and as a patient would want the ability to choose the best. However, in a climate of privatisation  competition takes on a different hue. Providers are by definition businesses making profit and patients come with money. The whole ethos changes, the whole identity of ‘patient’ changes – we become customers and the whole raison d’etre of providers is to attract our custom. The government argues that this will both push up quality AND push down cost but that’s a rather naive and simplistic view.

article-2107897-11F68D4C000005DC-425_468x249                  We all know that real quality costs money. We all equally know the tricks retailers use to attract us into their shops and tempt us to spend more and more. We know the amount of money they spend on slick advertising and fancy packaging of goods that turn out to be the same old thing. And we’ve seen how this tends to increase prices, not bring them down. When the bottom line is profit not patients then its likely patients will be exploited to achieve that profit.  And in this kind of competition it has always been the sharks and the big fish who win. 

The  Monitor regulations go on to stipulate,

“Clause 1 of the licence condition requires the licensee to notify and make information available to patients wherever a patient has a choice of provider under the NHS Constitution or a choice that has been conferred locally by a commissioner…The NHS Constitution also gives patients the right to access services within maximum waiting times, or, where this is not possible, the NHS must take all reasonable steps to offer patients a range of alternative providers.” 

Now we’re getting to the whole point of this blog.

Despite blatantly false claims from the Prime Minister and Jeremy Hunt that they are pouring extra money into the NHS*, doctors have confirmed this week at their annual BMA Conference that the NHS is being cut back ‘beyond the bone’ including on the front line – something we were faithfully promised when the Health Bill first raised its ugly head would never happen. In fact, so certain were doctors of this fact that they unanimously gave Hunt a vote of no confidence.

* See (http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/smith-shapps-now-cameron-lies-to-parliament-on-nhs-stats/)

c_71_article_1433663_image_list_image_list_item_0_image-2   Derelict Ancoats Hospital  

As hospitals are starved of cash they begin to miss targets and find themselves in breach of their licence (Monitor are already investigating three NHS hospitals for this)* and risk closure. As their waiting times for treatment get longer, if they want to avoid breaches for missing targets. and in order to comply with the Condition C1 shown above. they are sending their patients to private hospitals for their procedures and paying for this from their already stretched budgets. This is a zero sum game because by paying for more and more private treatment to avoid sanctions over targets NHS hospitals will eventually drain their budgets and be sanctioned anyway for going over budget – Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust is currently being investigated by Monitor for doing just that.

*Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust. Source: Monitor.

beaumont  Beaumont BMI Hospital

Yesterday I saw for myself the way the new Monitor regulations are beginning to bite in my own NHS Foundation Trust. My partner, Neil, was on the waiting list for a minor surgical procedure and last week he received an unexpected letter from a nearby private hospital, The Beaumont BMI Hospital in Bolton. It informed him that he had an appointment with them for his surgical procedure at 12 pm on 25th June. It also reassured him that the treatment would be paid for by the Royal Bolton NHS Foundation Trust Hospital (RBH), and a family member would need to accompany him to take him home after the procedure.

So  yesterday we duly arrived in time for his appointment. The hospital is an impressive old building set in its own large grounds and from the outside looks well maintained. The waiting room and reception area was small and comfortable, but not ostentatiously furnished. We sat down to wait for Neil to be called in for his appointment….And waited…and waited…

I read all four of the glossy magazines, Neil read the only newspaper provided, the Daily Mail, from cover to cover. During this time several more patients had turned up. I overheard one of them say loudly to the receptionist she couldn’t understand why RBH had sent her there. It transpired that the rapidly growing number of people filling up the small waiting area  were all NHS patients. The receptionist was beginning to look flustered.

download (1)      After we’d been been waiting for around 45 minutes an orderly approached the receptionist and began reading names from a list and telling her which rooms were being allocated to which patient. We heard him mention that Neil was down for room 19. He disappeared and returned ten minutes later and spoke to the receptionist again. This time he had Neil down for room 30. Meanwhile in the waiting area people were getting restless. A bored child was running around and this was obviously not making the receptionist happy. The orderly returned looking harassed and informed the receptionist of yet more room changes. This time Neil was allocated room 32 and finally we were asked to go with him up to the treatment floor.

Because I have difficulty with stairs due to a disability we asked to use the lift. He said this was fine but warned us the lift ‘played up, sometimes’ and needed some maintenance that never seemed to happen. Thankfully, it worked OK that time. We arrived at room 32 and the orderly opened the door to find it was still occupied by a patient. He apologised and said he’d find a nurse and see which room he should us in.

images (4)        A nurse came along just then and the embarrassed orderly stopped her and asked where he should put us. Without even glancing at us she told him  a tad tetchily that she had no idea and hurried off. The poor orderly apologised again and began opening the doors to other rooms until he found one empty. He went in search of someone else to check if he could put us in there and eventually it was sorted out.

By this time the orderly, who was actually a decent man trying to do his best for us, was visibly fed up and confided that they were finding it hard to cope with the influx of NHS work. As he explained the facilities in the room he also made a point of saying “I shouldn’t tell you this but be aware if you use the phone in here they put a massive charge on it and bill you for it when you leave”, the implication being that his employers were not averse to exploiting their customers.

It was now 1.15 pm. Last time Neil had this procedure done at RBH it was done within half an hour of his appointment time. He was looking a bit mithered because he always gets nervous on these occasions and all the waiting was obviously getting to him.

A few minutes later a woman from the kitchen came in with a menu. Neil apparently wouldn’t be discharged until he’d had something to eat and drink so he had to choose something from the menu. This was included in the treatment cost. The menu choice wasn’t spectacular but comparable to that I remember from a stay in the RBH a few years ago. Neil ordered a sandwich and coffee.

download (2)                   Two nurses came to do the paperwork and record Neil’s blood pressure etc. He asked them how long he’d be waiting for the procedure. They couldn’t tell him because the consultant doing the procedure hadn’t arrived at the hospital yet. He was still over at RBH finishing his list there. In the end it was 3.30 pm before Neil finally had his procedure. When I returned to pick him up he was eating his sandwich. It was a bog standard ham sandwich with the crusts cut off and with a few bits of salad leaves surrounding it. The only difference to an NHS ham sandwich was it was served on a posh plate. I also noticed that the cotton gown he was wearing was exactly the same as those used in the NHS everywhere. Ah well, there goes another myth exploded!

images  Royal Bolton NHS Hospital

The consultant came to talk to us afterwards to explain his findings and answer any questions. During the course of the conversation the consultant expressed his concerns about the NHS reforms saying that already doctors were finding the fragmented system was causing them huge problems with the continuity of patients’ records. He wants to see Neil again in six weeks and said he would insist this happened at RBH where he was able to conduct his clinic more efficiently.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions from this story. Its clear that some potentially disruptive changes are already afoot and private hospitals like the Beaumont are possibly going to see an increase in NHS patients coming through their doors. It was obvious even from this short glimpse that good as these hospitals may be, they are not equipped for large numbers of patients. This is one reason why they have been able to maintain standards. One potential positive outcome from this, given what I witnessed, may be that the Secretary of State will be forced to admit that the public sector model is not at the heart of our problems, since the private sector also struggles to cope with a sudden high demand.

A properly staffed  and well integrated NHS with real investment behind it and years of collective experience CAN give us the quality healthcare everyone in this country deserves. I’m more convinced of that now than I’ve ever been.

Advertisements

The All New Privatisation-Friendly CQC Board Members

download (4)    While all the furore has been going on concerning the report by Grant Thornton into events at Furness General Hospital and the alleged cover-up of a CQC report I wonder if anyone’s noticed that the CQC Board of Directors has been quietly evolving into a more privatisation-friendly animal.

Following the tide of resignations of red-faced Jo Williams, Cynthia Bower, Jill Finney and Anna Jefferson, all women who left proclaiming their innocence, comes a much more blue coloured tide of new appointees courtesy of Jeremy Hunt who, as Secretary of State for Health,  is responsible for such appointments.

CQC-David-Prior   David Prior,  one-time Chairman of the Conservative Party, is the new CEO.  Although he doesn’t include it in his Declaration of Interests, he was once non-executive chairman of the private healthcare company Chancellor Care which owned Cawston Park, a private mental hospital, and was arrested, along with other board members, on allegations of defrauding the NHS out of £2.3 million. He was later cleared of the charge and Chancellor Care was bought out by the Jeesal Group who provide private mental health care.

Camilla_Cavendish___160605a   Another key addition to the Board is Camilla Cavendish, who was at Oxford with David Cameron where, like him, she graduated in PPE. She once worked for McKinsey and Co. who in 2009 produced a  government commissioned report entitled ‘Achieving World Class Productivity in the NHS’ which recommended the adoption of a US style private insurance based health system.

0          But perhaps her biggest claim to fame is as Deputy Editor of the Sunday Times, the Murdoch owned newspaper, in which she’s written many pro business articles and more importantly has written extensively about the NHS in a way that chimes remarkably with Jeremy Hunt’s outpourings. One her headlines, “The GP’s cushy deal means we’re all left to suffer in casualty” kind of says it all.

   cav         During the Leveson enquiry it was revealed that she was one of the many influential  News International journalists who had been granted the ear of David Cameron.  

jeremy-hunt       Before it was announced that Ms Cavendish was to join the CQC, the Department of Health announced that she had been asked by Jeremy Hunt to conduct an ‘important’ study of healthcare assistants to ensure they have the necessary training standards. Commenting on this the SoS said,

“Camilla Cavendish has a long-standing and strong interest in the quality of care and compassion in health and social care. She will provide a fresh perspective on the key issues of valuing and supporting the staff who provide that care.”

Given her journalistic track record on health issues I think the subtext of that comment is “she’ll provide a Conservative perspective” as she no doubt will on the CQC Board.

jennifer-summit-2010-cutout-resized      Jennifer Dixon  is CEO of Nuffield Trust which is an independent charity specialising in research and policy advice in health and social care.The Nuffield Trust was established as the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust in 1940 by Viscount Nuffield (William Morris), the founder of Morris Motors. Dr Dixon was the project leader responsible for a series of reports commissioned by the government looking at a number of aspects of the Health and Social Care Act. Most recently she has been asked by Jeremy Hunt to look into the viability of an Ofsted-type ratings system for health services.The project she led also looked at competition issues and a statement on the Nuffield Trust website gives an indication of their approach,

“Competition is one of the most controversial tools with which successive governments have tried to boost efficiency and quality in the NHS. Our research examines how well market mechanisms in the NHS are working and whether their application could be made more effective.”

hospital_price-promise_300x150_module     The Nuffield group has many arms, one of which is Nuffield Health, a charity which runs 31 private hospitals in the UK. On their website they boast that they are,

“offering a wider range of health services than anyone else in the UK”

and claim that

“In May 2013, Nuffield Health launched a retail bond to support investment in health care services in the UK.”

download (7)     Another right leaning/business friendly CQC Board member is Michael Mire who is currently a Director at McKinsey and Company. Mr Mire is also an Oxford graduate and has experience in retail, finance and something referred to as ‘transformation’.

images (5)    On the new Healthwatch and Public Involvement website they make the following comment about the newly appointed Board members,

“These appointments reflect CQC’s commitment to strengthening its board, widening the skills and experience available to help govern and lead the organisation and to make it more independent”.

More independent? From what? The NHS maybe… but certainly not the private sector.

0_0_393_http-__offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk_News_PG_89708F60-BFC9-851D-3EF48E898E5E2E69        Don’t forget that the Health and Social Care Act has changed the role of the Secretary of State radically with its “hands-off clause”  that will severely curtail his ability to influence the delivery of NHS care in the future. That is now the job of the unelected national quango, Monitor. In a previous post here http://wp.me/p3mYc5-5J I showed how Monitor’s CEO, David Bennett was found to be sympathetic towards the interests of private healthcare providers. A major part of Monitor’s role is to oversee competition issues in the health service and rout out ‘anti-competitive’ practices through its system of licensing and policing compliance with the terms of those licenses.

If the CQC were to join forces with Monitor, as has been mooted, what kind of beast will then be the guardian of our NHS? 

The myth of the “Independent Report” or how the Tories are weaving threads of private interest into the very fabric of our country.

images (1)We’ve heard this week of yet another scandal in the NHS with the release of the Grant Thornton Report into the Maternity Unit at Furness General Hospital and the failings of the Care Quality Commission. I first heard the news of this in the early morning of yesterday on the BBC 24 hour news channel. I was struck by the repeated emphasis the BBC put on the independence of the report. They didn’t mention who had produced the report at that time but simply dubbed it, in large letters on the screen, INDEPENDENT REPORT. So striking was this emphasis that it immediately aroused my suspicions and a quick check on the Guardian website revealed just who had carried out the investigation – the UK arm of an international company called Grant Thornton LLP. So I decided to investigate just who these people were.

images (6)  On their website ( http://www.grant-thornton.co.uk/ ) they describe themselves as ‘one of the leading organisations of independent assurance, tax and advisory firms’ and strive to help businesses to discover ‘how to do things better, smarter, faster to achieve business growth and maximise wealth’. They ‘have partnered with the Daily Telegraph on an editorial & event series that examines how the most dynamic companies are achieving growth today; how are they capitalising on opportunities, and knocking through the barriers.’ In their latest Transparency Report pubished on their website they say that ‘at 30 June 2012, the firm employed 3,934 people (2011: 3,692), and currently provides client services from 23 locations throughout the United Kingdom. In addition, they have branch offices in the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands. My interest was definitely piqued by now, so I kept looking…

images (3)It didn’t take me long to discover that back in August 2010 Grant Thornton offered the Conservative Party the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of pounds in cash and non-cash donations such as staff secondments and consultancy services. 

Not long after taking office the Coalition decided to abolish the Audit Commission and The Observer reported:-

“The government’s decision to close down the Audit Commission, the public spending quango, is likely to benefit a number of companies that have donated large amounts to the Conservative party. Accountancy giants such as KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte and Grant Thornton have offered the party the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of pounds in cash and non-cash donations such as staff secondments and consultancy services. A government spokesman said it was “incorrect and malicious” to suggest that the major auditors will benefit from the closure of the quango – saying ministers hoped that “100 different” companies will win contracts. But critics point out all the companies have large public-sector audit departments and would be likely to put forward extremely strong bids. They also make up four out of five companies named on the Audit Commission’s website as already carrying out 30% of its public-sector audits.”

So it looks like the Coalition government dissolved a public body who audited public sector organisations very soon after the election providing more potential business for the big private auditors mentioned above and these guys hand over a significant financial reward  – but only to one party in the Coalition. I’m not suggesting they should have shared their largesse equally between the two coalition parties by saying that but pointing out that on top of the significance of rewarding a political party at this time, this also strongly suggests they have some friends in the Conservative party they want to keep onside.

Now we’ve all seen Margaret Hodge recently denouncing publicly and loudly about how KPMG have been allowed to be involved in government policy making on tax avoidance issues when they could soon be advising their wealthy clients how to get round the new regulations. The government obviously didn’t see any conflict of interest here or they wouldn’t have invited KPMG to consult on these matters. But then from a Conservative viewpoint, at least, their interests are definitely not conflicted by this.

I decided this needed further investigation so I did a bit of digging into the main players at Grant Thornton…and what I found was very interesting indeed.

images (7)Here we see Scott Barnes CEO of Grant Thornton being interviewed on CNBC TV about the economic opportunities afforded by the London Olympics. He also regularly blogs on a government website called ‘Great Business’

http://www.greatbusiness.gov.uk/2013/06/14/ten-tips-for-small-businesses-and-entrepreneurs-to-get-ahead/

download (1)He also writes regularly in the Torygraph and has set up a Grant Thornton ‘microsite’ under the banner of ‘unlocking the growth agenda’. He boasts on the company’s main website that:-

“We have partnered with the Daily Telegraph on an editorial & event series that examines how the most dynamic companies are achieving growth today; how are they capitalising on opportunities, and knocking through the barriers.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/business/grant-thornton/

I showed in a previous post how the Telegraph has gone out of its way to allow its editorial agenda to be commandeered by private healthcare vested interests –

http://wp.me/p3mYc5-42

download (1)Next up is Ed Warner OBE perhaps better known as the head honcho at UK Athletics and thus heavily involved in last year’s London Olympics. Ed is on Grant Thornton’s board but even more interesting is the fact that he’s Chair of Panmure Gordon, the investment bankers where David Cameron’s father made his fortune.

download One of the recent clients of Panmure Gordon is the pharmaceutical company based in Oxford,e-Therapeutics, who are currently working on a new cancer drug and a new drug for depression – both potential money spinners.

DavidCameron_eTherapeutics They recently invested in a new drug discovery centre in Oxford which was officially opened by none other than David Cameron.

Warner is also  Chairman of the IPC Athletics Sport Technical Committee  and was recently appointed as head of the Organising Committee for the 2017 International Association of Athletics Federations Championships (IAAF) World Championships in London by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) when it was still the remit of Jeremy Hunt, and the Mayor of London’s office. Boris Johnson personally vouched for him.

Obviously Ed is well connected with some top Conservatives.

download (3) The claim that Grant Thornton are an ‘independent’ disinterested outfit is even more discredited when you take into account that they have a large portfolio of clients in the private healthcare sector. Their website says it all:-

“In the private sector, our clients range from providers of primary and secondary care to private equity houses, care home providers and pharmaceutical and equipment suppliers. We focus on solutions. Our team is made up of highly experienced professionals who have a thorough understanding of the dynamics of the healthcare sector and who recognise that our clients require our service to be delivered on time and on budget. We pride ourselves on listening to our clients, working in an open and flexible manner and developing innovative, bespoke solutions. We were announced ‘Health Investor Accountant of the Year’ in 2009 and 2010 in recognition of our seamless range of services for a variety of high profile assignments across all parts of the healthcare sector. Our commitment to the sector is demonstrated by the pro bono work that our professionals undertake, serving on the boards of Foundation Trusts, Department of Health working parties and mentoring projects for civil servants. In addition, we regularly speak at leading healthcare conferences and contribute to industry journals.”

In 2011 they produced a different kind of report entitled ‘Healthcare: The Finance Flow: Is it moving?’ in which they describe a survey of “200 CEOs and CFOs of UK businesses with turnovers in the £25-250 million range” in order to discover how confident they felt about their business opportunities in the UK health sector. They asked the question,

“Are you planning to undertake a significant transaction in the coming 12 months?”

73% of the 200 big companies surveyed said “yes”.

This is what our government claim is an ‘independent’ organisation. They seem to be rewriting the dictionary.

download (4)Now we need to turn our attention to the CQC and in particular to its newly appointed CEO, David Prior because this is where the plot thickens. Prior was appointed as CEO on 28th January this year after the resignation of Jo Williams and in the midst of the current scandal. He earns £63K for 2 to 3 days work a week.

CQC-David-PriorDavid Prior is a former Conservative MP (Norwich) who was also the Chief Executive of the Conservative Party. He was the government’s ‘preferred candidate’ for the job, a fact that the Guardian said, last December, was ’cause for concern’.Peter Beresford, a professor of social policy at Brunel University wrote in the Guardian:-

“Unfortunately, whatever helpful skills and experience Prior has, for example, in his role as chair of Norfolk and Norwich University hospitals foundation trust, these are likely to be undermined by his close history with the leading party in the coalition. More thought and independence of mind must be shown in making this decision than were evident in the earlier decisions regarding top appointments to the commission.”

What Professor Beresford doesn’t say is that back in 2007, when Prior was also the non-executive chairman of the private healthcare company Chancellor Care which owned Cawston Park, a private mental hospital, he was arrested, along with other board members, on allegations of defrauded the NHS of £2.3 million. He was later cleared of the charge and Chancellor Care was bought out by the Jeesal Group who provide private mental health care.

images (8)From the moment he stepped into the job at the CQC Prior has been calling for hospital closures and criticising the state of A&E’s – in other words this head of a so-called politically independent watchdog has been publicly peddling the Tory agenda of privatisation.

According to The Slog blog, an excellent source for a comprehensive timeline of NHS privatisation :-

“Mr Prior is calling for large-scale closures of hospital beds, and a massive diversion of investment monies into community care. Unfortunately, the Lansley-Hunt axis of madness privatised most of the Primary Care sector, which they have handed over to a combo of Dave’s mate Sir Richard Branson and go-getting GP entrepreneurs on £250,000 a year and no after-hours working, thank you very much.”

http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/tag/cqc-david-prior/

newslogo_nhePrior spoke at a conference hosted by health think tank the King’s Fund this May which was reported on the NHE website. He said too many patients were arriving in hospital as emergencies, when they could have been helped earlier:-

“If we don’t start closing acute beds, the system is going to fall over. Emergency admissions through Accident & Emergency (A&E) are out of control in large parts of the country … That is totally unsustainable”

He claimed that the CQC has identified 45 hospitals with sustained problems over the past five years, which have been set as a priority for inspection. A further 20% of hospitals are “coasting along”,

And he continues to sound even more like the SoS for Health when he says:-

“I think primary care is in bad shape. I think GPs ought to be responsible 24/7 – they should never have opted out from out of hours care.”

0_0_393_http-__offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk_News_PG_89708F60-BFC9-851D-3EF48E898E5E2E69Robert Francis QC  who was responsible for the report of the inquiry into the Mid Staffs NHS Foundation Trust has implied that in the future the CQC ought to merge with Monitor, who are the economic regulator set up to promote effective and efficient providers of health and care, to promote competition, regulate prices and safeguard the continuity of services. Whilst Monitor is a public body serious questions have been raised by Social Investigations about its CEO, David Bennett.

1261266_bennett-davidSocial Investigations found an internal memo written by NHSPN director, David Worskett which reveals both he and Monitor chief, David Bennett met during the Health bill ‘pause’ under the auspices of free market think tank, Reform. NHSPN is a consortium of private healthcare providers. The document was an update informing the groups members on the lobbying that had taken place during the so-called ‘listening exercise’. Mr Worksett informs his members how: ‘I had a second lengthy meeting…under the auspices of “Reform”, with only a handful of other (all like-minded) people present, including David Bennett, the chair of Monitor. He has also consistently taken the same line as us throughout.’

David Bennett’s bias was also brought into question previously when a FOI revealed an email from an unnamed McKinsey executive from May 2010, suggesting it was planning to exploit its privileged access to government. It stated: “We have been gathering our thinking on the implications of the new Government programme for the NHS (and) have started to share this with clients. Would you like to meet to discuss it?” The recipient of the email was David Bennett.

David Bennett was a former senior partner at McKinsey & Co, the architects of the £20bn savings that are being justified to sell off large chunks of the NHS.

nhs-plcIf the government were so eager to close down the Audit Commission almost as soon as they took over in 2010,paving the way for private auditors to make profit from public money, then its not inconceivable that they would merge the CQC with Monitor. Since both David Prior of the CQC and David Bennett of Monitor seem ‘on message’ with the privatisation agenda, whatever watchdog emerged would be likely to embrace a culture of private healthcare. A culture that put profit before patients.

It seems to me that the Conservative Party is effectively operating as a PR Department for big business simply there to sell their projects to us; and as such the democratic process is dead. These are people who WE employ to represent us, who are paid at least three times the average wage for that privilege.

On the BBC’s ‘advert’ for the Parliament channel David Cameron can be heard shouting self-righteously:-

“I know where I stand, I know where this Party stands, and that’s in the national interest!”

No you don’t David. You and your Party exist entirely to cater to the multinational interest.