Roger Godsiff MP calls for an end to costly and damaging NHS privatisation
Posted by Roger Godsiff, MP for Birmingham, Hall Green, at 17:45, Sunday 18 January:
Roger has tabled a series of Early Day Motions and Parliamentary Questions to protest the damaging effects on patient care of the privatisation and fragmentation of the National Health Service.
The EDMs draw attention to the problems which occur when private companies are allowed to cherry-pick those NHS services they believe they can make a profit from, then send patients back to the NHS when things go wrong. Private health company Vanguard won a contract to provide cataract surgery to Musgrove Park Hospital, which was forced to terminate the contract after more than half of the patients who underwent surgery suffered from serious complications, which the NHS then had to treat at taxpayer expense. The injured patients are now forced to take legal action against Vanguard.
Commented Roger: “If NHS patients were aware that having their surgery done by a private company which had been subcontracted by the NHS was more likely to result in complications, they simply would not agree to undergo surgery at a private hospital. It is unacceptable that people’s health and even lives are being put at risk by the failed experiment of privatisation. It is simply not possible for private health companies to make what they regard as an acceptable profit from NHS contracts unless they undercut on safety standards and provision for emergency care, leaving the NHS to pick up the pieces when companies provide poor or dangerous care.
“In 2012-13, there were more than 2,600 emergency admissions to the NHS from the private sector. These private companies take the money for carrying out surgery then dump patients back on the NHS when complications occur. This means that the shareholders make a fat profit at the expense of the UK taxpayer and of their patients’ well-being. The NHS should, at the very least, have the powers to recoup costs resulting from private contractors’ ineptitude.”
The safety record of private hospitals is extremely worrying. Figures obtained from the Care Quality Commission show that just over 800 patients died unexpectedly in private hospitals in England between October 2010 and April 2014, and there were more than 900 serious injuries. Yet because private health companies are not subject to the same transparency and disclosure rules as the NHS, it is impossible to carry out a like-for-like comparison on statistics such as death rates and infections to see just how much more dangerous private hospitals are than those run by the national health service. In the EDMs Roger tabled, he calls for the same level of scrutiny, regulation and protection of patients' safety to be applied to private patients as currently exist for NHS patients.
Roger said: “The recent Hinchingbrooke Hospital disaster shows the effects of privatising the NHS. Hichingbrooke was the first hospital to be privatised, and Circle Group pulled out of the contract when it found it to be insufficiently profitable. Unlike the NHS, private companies have a duty to maximise shareholder profits and will therefore prioritise this over patient wellbeing and public health”.
Roger’s EDMs highlight the fact that Circle Group has previous form in making a mess of NHS contracts. The group took over Bedfordshire's £120 million Musculoskeletal Service, which led to a 30 per cent reduction in referrals to the Bedford Hospital Trust. This undermined not only the ability of the A&E department to see and admit trauma patients, but also the Trust’s ability to pay and retain consultants. Nottingham University Hospitals Trust will no longer be able to provide acute adult dermatology, including skin cancer and emergency care after losing six of its eight consultants. Five of these consultants left rather than transfer to Circle over concerns about job security and that a profit-driven provider would not offer opportunities for academic research or training.
Roger continued: “The NHS is already an extremely cost-effective way of providing healthcare. By allowing private companies to get their greedy hands on NHS contracts, less money will be spent on healthcare and more will be wasted on management and advertising costs, not to mention on profits. Why should a single penny of UK taxpayers’ money—which should be spent on healthcare—be wasted on fattening investors’ shareholder value or corporate returns? Citizens have a right to demand that their taxes are spent on public services, not wasted on fattening greedy, incompetent corporations which lack any concern for public health or patient safety.”
Roger also tabled Written Parliamentary Questions to ask the Government what proportion of GP practices are privately owned and what research has been done into the differences in quality—such as survival rates and waiting times—between privately owned and NHS GP practices. He also asked how much admissions to the NHS from private hospitals which could not cope with emergencies are costing the NHS, and what proportion of private health companies which have taken on GP contracts have left the contract early when they found that it was not sufficiently profitable, sometimes leaving citizens with no local GP service. To all of these questions, the Department of Health’s answer was the same: it “does not hold this information centrally”.
Said Roger: “It is extremely worrying that the Department of Health is not fulfilling its responsibility to collect data on the effects of the decision to privatise many vital parts of the NHS. If the Government do not require data to be collected to enable the results of privatisation to be examined, how will MPs or doctors be able to compare the safety and value for money of private versus public provision?
“If the Government insist on continuing with a policy of privatisation which has so far been utterly disastrous, it should at the very least bother to collect data to compare the two modes of provision. That the Government decline to do so leads to the suspicion that Ministers at the Department are reluctant to subject the performance of private healthcare companies which take on NHS contracts to proper public and parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that to do so would clearly show that the NHS is the more cost-effective and safer way of providing good quality public healthcare, and would therefore destroy any arguments in favour of privatisation and fragmentation.”
Comments
If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency,
log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK,
sign up in order to
HearFromYourMP.
Posted by Colin, 08:42, Monday 19 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
Well, Mr. Godsiff has been busy, the forthcoming election is clearly concentrating minds.. 1. There is no question that private hospitals should have financial responsibility for complications, which they have caused. However, for difficulties which may have arisen anyway, as a consequence of a patient's condition, they are as entitled as anyone else to have NHS treatment, if their private cover does not allow, assuming they have normal NHS rights. Effectively, they will have paid twice for treatment & may have actually saved the NHS money & a place on the waiting list. 2. How does he know it is 'impossible' for private hospitals to make a profit? Where are his facts? Presumably, if this were the case, they wouldn't exist. Like private schools, they are there because there is profit & demand from those not satisfied with state provision. Considering the ever-increasing costs, waste & inefficiency of the NHS, it would be incredible if privately-run hospitals could not make improvements. 3. Whilst criticizing the safety record of private hospitals, Mr. Godsiff ignores the horror & disaster of Stafford (patients drinking from water vases, etc.) which happened under Labour's watch, together with the ongoing mess of Labour's Welsh NHS. 4. He describes the NHS as 'extremely cost-effective'. - Just too ludicrous for comment. He talks of 'money wasted on fattening greedy, incompetent corporations'. This could just as easily be a description of the NHS, with managers & consultants earning hundreds of thousands of pounds, vast sums wasted on temporary staff, staff made redundant, then re-hired at exorbitant rates, etc. 5. Mr. Godsiff should reconsider his attacks on private Companies & profit. These Companies drive our economy, pay our salaries & pensions. Also, MP's are very eager to take directorships with these 'greedy, incompetent corporations, whenever they can get their greedy, incompetent mitts on them.
Posted by Mohammed Hemraj, 11:10, Monday 19 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
It would be much cheaper for the NHS to send patients abroad (e.g. India) for surgery. In many cases complications are bound to occur in surgery and so personally I would avoid it.
Posted by Ian Soady, 17:19, Monday 19 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
Excellent Roger. I accept that the previous "New Labour" government got it sadly wrong by encouraging private involvement, not least the PFI fiasco but Colin's intervention here is just risible. Waste in the NHS is caused not by its inherent nature but by constant reorganisation and the introduction of competition and fake "markets" which do nothing to improve care and just swell consulting firms' profits. There may be demand but is that driven by real need or by expensive advertising (which we all ultimately pay for). To say that MPs (note there should be no apostrophe) "are very eager to take directorships with these 'greedy, incompetent corporations" that is perfectly true of some (principally I have to say on the Tory benches) but certainly not all and I'm sure Roger is not one of them.
As for Mohammed's puerile contribution it would be less embarrassing for him if he just kept quiet.
Posted by Colin, 10:40, Tuesday 20 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
I looked at Wikipedia, for any mention of Mr. Godsiff holding any directorships & I found the following, interesting snippet:-
'Andy McSmith's book Faces of Labour (1996), contends that Godsiff obtained selection for his seat in 1992 by dubious means, which although accepted by the Labour Party, were too late to act upon. In 2005, Tribune made similar allegations about his successful bid to stave off deselection, which was only thwarted by the local votes of his former employer, the GMB Union. Godsiff had angered many in his local party by his calls for curbs on immigration.
Godsiff also attracted controversy in the 2009 parliamentary expenses scandal, where he was reported as using office expenses for extensive roofing work, rewiring, replacement guttering and even clock repair at a property he owns.[3]
Further controversy followed when he used images of convicted child sex offender and nursery worker Vanessa George in a campaign to smear the Liberal Democrats by association. The local campaign was later scrapped.[4]
He refuses to take any part in hustings meetings and has attended less than 50% of parliamentary debates during his time in office.[5]
He incurred the second highest expenses of all 647 MPs' for 2008/2009 with claims for £189,338
Posted by Mohammed Hemraj, 13:19, Wednesday 21 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
Ian Soady by writing that my contribution was puerile and it would be less embarrassing for me if I just kept quiet, is not only offensive but also defamatory. I take it that he also implied that Muslims in general should keep quiet because they are all childish and should remain quiet even when their religion is being mocked and the Muslims land is occupied and innocent children, women and men are killed.
The Paris demonstration, in which some of the Muslims took part, was against killing and they did not condone defaming the Prophet and did not approve of inciting hatred but it continues. A world leader who has blood in his hands and who has occupied a Muslim land continues to kill innocent thousand of the Muslims, was also present protesting against a few who were killed for defaming the Prophet. What a mockery and where is justice?
Posted by Ian Soady, 14:58, Thursday 22 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
So, Colin, he doesn't hold any directorships which was your suggestion? Everything you quote is allegations and smears.
And Mohammed, how you can interpret my comment as being anti-Muslim beats me. It was related solely to the views expressed by you personally and I know that those do not reflect the opinions of the Muslims I know.
Posted by Colin, 09:17, Friday 23 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
@Ian Soady. I did not suggest that Mr. Godsiff holds directorships. I made the general suggestion that MP'S (both forms are accepted, but thanks for the English lesson), are often seen to be very keen on these outside 'interests'. However, the information gleaned from Wikipedia, regarding his expenses, might inform us as to Mr. Godsiff's attitude to 'greed'.
Posted by Mohammed Hemraj, 14:26, Friday 23 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
Is anyone aware how much NHS spends on prescription medicine? It is 4 billion pounds per year. £80 million is spent on paracetamol which does not need a prescription and costs £2.00 for 100 tablets over the counter. GPs, as a cost effective method, instead of writing prescription should give £2.00 to the patients (or stock paracetamol) to buy paracetamol. Government should forbid GPs form writing prescription for paracetamol. The UK population is also aging. NHS will not be able to cope up in future if the trend continues.
Posted by Colin, 09:51, Saturday 24 January: (Is this post abusive?) #
The NHS has never got to grips with being the 'de facto' free World Health Service, open to anyone who is able to pitch up at A&E. Never mind the millions of extra immigrants who have arrived over the last few years, often with a lifetime of health issues to sort out. Imagine if you had a pub with free drinks, would you be surprised if it was abused & needed more money pouring in for ever? Here's Peter Mandelson on Labour's immigration policy:-
Speaking at a conference organised by Labour’s Progress group, Lord Mandelson said: “The issue of immigration is more economic than social. The problem has grown during the period of economic stagnation over the past five, six years, because in 2004 when as a Labour government we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country because we were almost, a sort of full employment economy.
“The situation is different obviously now. We have to just realise and just take cognisance that the entry to the labour market of many people of non-British origin is hard for people who are finding it very difficult to find jobs, who find it hard to keep jobs. For these people immigration tends to loom large in their lives and in their worlds.
“Now that is an inescapable fact and we have to understand it, address it, engage with people in discussion about it.”
So it's rather rich now for Labour MP's to be bemoaning their effects on our public services & blaming the Tories for it.