Ben Goldacre explains how the NHS is being privatised

[Ray Pennybody]

http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/what-will-happen-with-the-nhs-bill-in-5-tweet



Say goodbye to universal healthcare. 

[Ray Pennybody]

Also,

The Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is also facing a hearing in March where the Information Commissioner will seek to force Mr Lansley to release a secret government report on the risks of the NHS reforms.

Dollars to doughnuts they'll try to vote on it before the IC makes a decision on this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16861672

[instinct]

Also,

The Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is also facing a hearing in March where the Information Commissioner will seek to force Mr Lansley to release a secret government report on the risks of the NHS reforms.

Dollars to doughnuts they'll try to vote on it before the IC makes a decision on this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16861672

Alien DNA?

[ben_]

http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/what-will-happen-with-the-nhs-bill-in-5-tweet



Say goodbye to universal healthcare.  

What a load of shit, parts of the health bill are of course extremely worrying but it's shit like this that gives all the campaigners a bad name, they just recite Ben Goldacre who in my opinion has straight up lied here to score some politics points. Mind you he is clearly pining for a job at the Labour Party, so it would make sense for him to lie for them and cover up the terrible mess they have made of the NHS.

Here are the real facts...

1) GP's aren't responsible for commissioning, they are just being made a part of the process as they should have always been to begin with, who better to relay their needs, the GP practices themselves, or centrally?

2) It's not like they're doing it on their own either, they are all getting specialist support from their Primary Care Trusts, who are transferring some staff to clinical commissioning groups, which are groups of GP practices who will do the commissioning.

3) There will be a national commissioning board of around 1000 staff who will oversee the whole thing and manage procurement and give policy advice, the buck stops with them, and if any CCG's aren't ready to go by April 2013 they will take the lead.

It makes me angry when people with credentials like Goldacre manipulate the truth like this, because it makes it so easy for the Tories to get what they want. If anything these changes make things too centralised still, because the CCG's have to answer to the bureaucracy of the National Commissioning Board. In the end, more power will be devolved to the CCG's because there will be still too much bureaucracy, not the other way round!

[B'Tol]

The NHS does not need reform. Nor does it need to have added layers of beurocracy.

It is the most cost effective health service on the green earth.

If anything, it needs greater investment.

I would also like to add Goldacre is wrong on this imo.

[ben_]

The NHS does not need reform. Nor does it need to have added layers of beurocracy.

It is the most cost effective health service on the green earth.

If anything, it needs greater investment.

I would also like to add Goldacre is wrong on this imo.

I don't think throwing extra money at the NHS will solve anything in exactly the same way that radical reforms will, too much change too quickly leads to waste, mistakes, and confusion within the service.

Labour wasted money in spectacular fashion with the NHS, the last thing it needs is more money. My dad works as a consultant for gateway reviews in the health sector and thinks that one of the main reasons things don't work as intended in the NHS is because government don't leave the dust to settle before their next major change in policy.

[Wes G]

I think ben and btol are wrong, im not saying why, i dont care to explain myself, i just think they are wrong.

[Ray Pennybody]

Every royal college in the medical profession is now against these reforms, and curiously the college of GPs seems to echo Goldacre's sentiments.

"Competition, and the opening up our of health service to any qualified providers will lead not only to fragmentation of care, but also potentially to a 'two tier' system with access to care defined by a patient's ability to pay."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9058968/Royal-College-of-GPs-call-for-health-bill-to-be-scrapped.html

[Alphabetical]

As someone who has worked in healthcare on the corporate side, I persnally think privatisation of the health care system would be a good thing. There's never been a single case of MRSA for example in a private hospital, you generally have access to much better drugs and treatments and are dealt with much more efficiently and with greater levels of care.

I'm sure that the response to this comment from many will be of dismay, but honestly privatisation wouldn't cost us any more than whatme pay already in taxes and you'd have much better quality of care.

Release the wolves 

[Whagwan]

And it works so well in America!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/28/occupy-san-francisco-cancer-patient

[Ray Pennybody]

And it works so well in America!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/28/occupy-san-francisco-cancer-patient

This is it. The ideology of healthcare which is free at the point of use and available equally to all should be absolutely, 100% sacrosanct. Even putting those principles up for discussion is a step too far.

[Alphabetical]

And it works so well in America!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/28/occupy-san-francisco-cancer-patient

This is it. The ideology of healthcare which is free at the point of use and available equally to all should be absolutely, 100% sacrosanct. Even putting those principles up for discussion is a step too far.

I agree that healthcare should be free, but I believe that the system should be managed privately. Privately managed hospitals allways perform much better than publicly owned hospitals, not because they have more money but because they are better managed. I'll come back to this tomorrow with a more in depth input to this discussion... I'm not saying use the American model, but I am saying that private organisations would do a much better job than civil servants at managing the system

[Ray Pennybody]

And it works so well in America!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/28/occupy-san-francisco-cancer-patient

This is it. The ideology of healthcare which is free at the point of use and available equally to all should be absolutely, 100% sacrosanct. Even putting those principles up for discussion is a step too far.

I agree that healthcare should be free, but I believe that the system should be managed privately. Privately managed hospitals allways perform much better than publicly owned hospitals, not because they have more money but because they are better managed. I'll come back to this tomorrow with a more in depth input to this discussion... I'm not saying use the American model, but I am saying that private organisations would do a much better job than civil servants at managing the system

The problem with private/public partnership imo is that the tendering process introduces the ills of the public approach to the process, without introducing many of the benefits of the private process. Competition isn't very well fostered when there's only a single customer and that customer only makes a decision on who to purchase from once or twice a decade.

[Whagwan]

Just a thought, can I have examples of services that have performed better after privatisation?

[Alphabetical]

Just a thought, can I have examples of services that have performed better after privatisation?

 

Hospitals
Outpatient care
In patien care
Training
Membership engagement (when you assess regionanl demographics and engage the targeted area to recieving treatments they require)
Membership recruitment
Database and back office support
Market research
Healthcare intelligence
Property management
Health economics
Information Technology

I could go on 

[ZatOichi]

Just a thought, can I have examples of services that have performed better after privatisation?

 

Hospitals - shutting down mulitple sites to create super hospitals
Outpatient care - sending people home as soon as possible.
In patient care - can't really comment on this
Training - buying every thing from the private sector means buying the product specific training instead of just muddling through
Membership engagement / Information Technology / Database and back office support/Healthcare intelligence - data management is a major problem in public services - "data rich, information poor."
Membership recruitment - employ people that are cheaper and don't have rights accrued after decades of service and don't use permanent contracts.
Market research - market? its a service and if market research points out something that costs money its ignored. Cheap publicity wins
Property management - sell as much as you possibly can, preferably to your mates.
Health economics - what does that even mean?

I could go on 

sounds like you are a PCT bod - probably on a contract - probably in IT (broadest sense)

[nevermind]

Just a thought, can I have examples of services that have performed better after privatisation?

 

Hospitals
Outpatient care
In patien care
Training
Membership engagement (when you assess regionanl demographics and engage the targeted area to recieving treatments they require)
Membership recruitment
Database and back office support
Market research
Healthcare intelligence
Property management
Health economics
Information Technology

I could go on 

Those are just theoretical examples of areas where privatisation could work.

[Wes G]

There's never been a single case of MRSA for example in a private hospital

 

Is it right that you can make statements like that?

Private hospitals screen patients, and turn them away if certain infections are found, those people are sent to NHS hospitals, they even screen the staff. (how typically capitalist)

[Alphabetical]

Just a thought, can I have examples of services that have performed better after privatisation?

 

Hospitals
Outpatient care
In patien care
Training
Membership engagement (when you assess regionanl demographics and engage the targeted area to recieving treatments they require)
Membership recruitment
Database and back office support
Market research
Healthcare intelligence
Property management
Health economics
Information Technology

I could go on  

Those are just theoretical examples of areas where privatisation could work.

I really hope this thread doesn't turn into a big slagging match lol.. One of the reasons I don't really post here anymore   Please be civil in your responses lol

I can promise you mate, those are not theoretical improvements I have come up with, those are all examples of areas of the NHS where privatisation has improved the system and there are report and statistics against many that validate my point. For example:

On point example 1 regarding Hospitals
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8918731/Hospital-guide-private-units-better-than-NHS-for-joint-replacement.html

I could provide examples against each I have specified but hopefully you'll get the drift and save me from having to do so  

@ Zatoichi - I've worked in and around many areas of the NHS and Healthcare industry, directly with the NHS improving services with PCTs, on the outsourcing side for a large corporate, for private health providers and als directly for the NHS. I'd like to think I have a fairly rounded perspective on things, but I by know means do I profess to know everything. Just from my experience and understanding, privatisation encourages competition which in turn drives up quality and reduces costs, better allocation of budgets, more logical decision making rather than lots of bureaucracy, more investment into technologies and treatments, bodies being held more accountable for issues and problems.

I want to be really clear on this, it's not black and white like people such as Michael Moore will portray (although I do have a lot of respect for many of his opinions), its much more complex than that. We should go in the direction of a medium, all funds come directly from our taxes as they do now - no insurance system like the states, their system is fucked - EVERYONE SHOULD GET CARE! However, there should be a significant increase on partnerships with private business and more clinical and business like decision making processes, at present ludicrous decisions are made because of red tape, bureaucracy and poor senior management. Doing so I absolutely promise would significantly increase quality of care, services, reduce wastage and improve efficiency.

Remember this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15014288

There's never been a single case of MRSA for example in a private hospital

 

Is it right that you can make statements like that?

Private hospitals screen patients, and turn them away if certain infections are found, those people are sent to NHS hospitals, they even screen the staff. (how typically capitalist)

Its a fact Wes, so yes I can make statements like that  . Having worked for a large private health provider, I know the processes inside out - If you are referred by a GP, consultant etc to hospital, generally you are able to choose any hospital to receive treatment. There are no screening processes that I have ever heard of refusing care.

Lets keep this debate nice now, I really can't be fucked to enter into a slagging match

[Alphabetical]

Also want to agree with points made earlier in this thread, the NHS does not need any more money, what the NHS needs is much better management of budgets, something that civil servants generally are not great at

[ZatOichi]

the cruel irony is that the civil service would work so much better if the politicians would keep their noses out

[Wes G]

Its a fact Wes, so yes I can make statements like that  . Having worked for a large private health provider

Funny that, because a person working for a large health provider gave me that info, we can dissagree on where and when and in what amounts, maybe even argue about what facts actually are, but im sticking with what i know for now  

[Alphabetical]

Its a fact Wes, so yes I can make statements like that  . Having worked for a large private health provider

Funny that, because a person working for a large health provider gave me that info, we can dissagree on where and when and in what amounts, maybe even argue about what facts actually are, but im sticking with what i know for now  

Okay mate

When you challenged my statement 'no private hospital to date has had a single case of MRSA' (The feared super-bug resistant to most forms of known treatment), the basis for you dismissing this FACT is built around a conversation or knowledge that was transferred to you by a friend.  Your response was: "Private hospitals screen patients, and turn them away if certain infections are found (presumably referring to MRSA???), those people are sent to NHS hospitals, they even screen the staff. (how typically capitalist)"

Are you actually aware that MRSA is almost always contracted by patients recovering in hospital from surgery?

By the pure and simple fact that screening for people suffering from MRSA pre-admission to hospital would almost never occur due to the bug 99.99% of the time being contracted whilst already in hospital, your argument I'm afraid simply doesn't stack up. If I am missing something, please help me to understand

 

[nevermind]

Just a thought, can I have examples of services that have performed better after privatisation?

 

Hospitals
Outpatient care
In patien care
Training
Membership engagement (when you assess regionanl demographics and engage the targeted area to recieving treatments they require)
Membership recruitment
Database and back office support
Market research
Healthcare intelligence
Property management
Health economics
Information Technology

I could go on  

Those are just theoretical examples of areas where privatisation could work.

I really hope this thread doesn't turn into a big slagging match lol.. One of the reasons I don't really post here anymore   Please be civil in your responses lol

I can promise you mate, those are not theoretical improvements I have come up with, those are all examples of areas of the NHS where privatisation has improved the system and there are report and statistics against many that validate my point. For example:

On point example 1 regarding Hospitals
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8918731/Hospital-guide-private-units-better-than-NHS-for-joint-replacement.html

I could provide examples against each I have specified but hopefully you'll get the drift and save me from having to do so  

To clarify, I wasn't being argumentative, it was just you hadn't mentioned specific examples hence it all being theoretical. Didn't realise you were referring to services within the NHS which had been privatised. I would also add that the Torygraph is very much in favour of privatising everything - not to say your example isn't correct though.

I'm sure there are examples of privatisation working, just as there are examples of it not - I have no experience of a publicly run bus service but I can't see how it can be any worse than First. From a personal point of view I would generally be opposed to privatisation because it logically means the focus switches from the service provision to making a profit, which can then lead to cherrypicking services and other negatives. On the other hand, with the right safeguards in place I'm sure it can work. The danger is that the safeguards are later removed.

[ben_]

Just to bring up a quick pro privatisation point, First isn't privatised, it's a state granted monopoly (unless I'm very much mistaken), even if you and I could do it much cheaper and better, we're not allowed to, which is why first is so shit in the first place. The argument in favour of privatisation is competition increases efficiency, if there isn't any competition it's not privatisation

[Alphabetical]

@ Ben & Never - This is the thing, it's such a complex subject its so hard to convey to you the right way to go about things. Ben you make a really valid point that there needs to be competition for it to work. For me a good example would be to look at the dental industry, NHS funded, privately owned clinics that all compete with each other, then the choice to take out premium care with people like Denplan etc. The Dental world isn't ideal and theres lots of areas that can be improved, but the core ideology works. I'd like to see a similar model with the NHS. The biggest danger with this model which you have mentioned is around cherry picking services to provide, that would be a key challenge that would need to be a primary focus of regulation and issuing contracts. @Nevermind sorry if I came across defensive, I was being a little, didn't mean it in an argumentative way, it's an interesting subject and you make some good points.

[Ray Pennybody]

Just to bring up a quick pro privatisation point, First isn't privatised, it's a state granted monopoly (unless I'm very much mistaken), even if you and I could do it much cheaper and better, we're not allowed to, which is why first is so shit in the first place. The argument in favour of privatisation is competition increases efficiency, if there isn't any competition it's not privatisation

That's just lexical pedantry at the end of the day though, isn't it? You don't call the local bus routes privatised because there's no competition in terms of consumer choice, but the local government would call it privatised because private companies tender competitively for the routes once or twice a decade. I'm not sure how differing with the language used in official channels gets anyone anywhere. I'm also not sure how private providers would end up being treated any differently by the PCT bureaucracies than bus companies currently are by the local council bureaucracies.

[ben_]

Just to bring up a quick pro privatisation point, First isn't privatised, it's a state granted monopoly (unless I'm very much mistaken), even if you and I could do it much cheaper and better, we're not allowed to, which is why first is so shit in the first place. The argument in favour of privatisation is competition increases efficiency, if there isn't any competition it's not privatisation

That's just lexical pedantry at the end of the day though, isn't it? You don't call the local bus routes privatised because there's no competition in terms of consumer choice, but the local government would call it privatised because private companies tender competitively for the routes once or twice a decade. I'm not sure how differing with the language used in official channels gets anyone anywhere. I'm also not sure how private providers would end up being treated any differently by the PCT bureaucracies than bus companies currently are by the local council bureaucracies.

In that specific instance I think it was relevant because in my eyes First wouldn't be shit if there was competition - so it doesn't stand as a good example where privatisation fails because it's where state granted monopolies fail for the same reasons private monopolies fail.

Yes the government do refer to state granted monopolies and competitive markets as the same thing, which is largely to cover up for the fact that the Tories are nepotists and not free marketeers, I think this is wrong, but I think it's important to distinguish between privatised industries with markets and state monopolies when talking about whether privatisation works.

[nevermind]

Ben - I'm sure this is a gross oversimplification of the arguments on my part but isn't the whole idea behind Positive Money to oppose what it sees as the privatisation of money creation? Why is privatisation bad in that instance but good in others?

[ben_]

Ben - I'm sure this is a gross oversimplification of the arguments on my part but isn't the whole idea behind Positive Money to oppose what it sees as the privatisation of money creation? Why is privatisation bad in that instance but good in others?

not an oversimplification at all that's spot on - what we have at the moment is a state sponsored monopoly in money/banking, there originally used to be competition, and then the banks / the state set up central banks and the monopoly.

I now think I would prefer privatised money over renationalised money, so yeah my opinions have changed. However, I don't think anyone will ever convince the state to give up power over its source of income though, it needs to be circumvented by allowing competition, which would mean voluntary taxation (also probably never going to happen while states are still powerful).

What I'm still fairly convinced of is that, in the meantime, it would be better for the state to renationalise money properly as per the proposals than to keep what we have going until it falls apart. I do have problems with the ethics of giving the state more power in general though, maybe it would be better to allow it all to fail, but then making such a major change might lead to calls for allowing other currencies if it goes wrong or the redefining of the state into something good.

I don't work for PM anymore by the way!

[B'Tol]

Lol at MRSA being a super bug.

It is on our skin now. Something like 90% of people carry it in their noses.

People get attacked by it in hospitals because their immune system is shot to shit and because people don't wash their hands as instructed when entering a ward.

I worked for the NHS for 4 years. It is a FACT that it is the most cost effective health service on Earth, regardless of needless middle management and over inflated "management consultants" and falling up trends.


If the middle management was cut, it would by proxy gain more funding.

Of course private healthcare works better, it's an entirely different business model as every element is for profit. The NHS is not.

The myth mongering here is staggering.

[Frank Mina]

It is a FACT that Harrods does better food than the Co-op.  Ergo, if all Co-ops were Harrods we'd all eat better food.

[B'Tol]

It is a FACT that Harrods does better food than the Co-op.  Ergo, if all Co-ops were Harrods we'd all eat better food.

We are talking about a "free" service. Which a lot of people take the piss with. Going to A&E with an ear ache.

Not to mention in 2005, the bursary scheme attributed to student nurses created more waste than the deficit that year in nurses going on to work in private healthcare or who simply dropped out.

Having a higher level of entry in terms of qualifications for student nurses would be a fantastic start in saving money.

It doesn't need privatisation. It needs adequate waste management and to be left alone by the state so we can actually look at the business model and see what doesn't work over a period of time.

[Frank Mina]

For clarity; I was being facetious.

Ear ache is totes ghastly though.

[B'Tol]

For clarity; I was being facetious.

Ear ache is totes ghastly though.

You?! Nnoooooooo!

I'm mostly being drunk. So that probably made little sense.

[nevermind]

We are talking about a "free" service. Which a lot of people take the piss with. Going to A&E with an ear ache.

I've done this. It fucking hurt.

[Ray Pennybody]

I went to A&E once because I couldn't walk without agonising pain.... its a long fucking walk from the front door to the waiting room though and they didn't do fuck all for me. May as well have stayed at home.

edit: Before 1984 says it, I should've gone to the walk-in centre. The name put me off.

[Frank Mina]

You're supposed to cut the buttocks out of your leather trousers before you put them on, mate.

[Hooner]

One of the reasons I don't really post here anymore  

Don't be such a girl!  You're making some good points

[Ray Pennybody]

You're supposed to cut the buttocks out of your leather trousers before you put them on, mate.

Is that the best you can do? I expected better, really.

[Wes G]

If I am missing something, please help me to understand

Logic, reasoning, rationality and a fuking pair of eyeballs

[Wes G]

http://www.londonbridgehospital.com/LBH/patient-info/mrsa/

Patients admitted to London Bridge Hospital, either as a inpatient or as a daycase, are screened for MRSA carriage by taking a swab from the anterior part of the nose (the most common site of staphylococcal carriage, including MRSA) and possibly other key body sites. Should the patient be an MRSA carrier, the procedure may be deferred pending eradication treatment, or if clinically necessary to proceed, will be nursed in strict isolation ("barrier nursing") to reduce the possibility of transmission to healthcare staff or other patients.

http://www.ramsayhealth.co.uk/private-patients/clinical-information/mrsa-screening.aspx

Screening for the presence of MRSA is a precautionary step which can prove vital as many patients entering hospitals have been shown to be carrying MRSA. if you are positive for MRSA then we can take measures both to protect you and others from infection with MRSA.

http://old.nuffieldhealth.com/Documents/policy%20documents/MRSA_Patient_Leaflet.pdf / http://old.nuffieldhealth.com/Health-Professionals/About-Us/Our-Quality-Standards/Nuffield-Health-Policy---MRSA-/

If you are due to come into hospital for an operation, Nuffield Health have a pre assessment programme which will involve asking questions to determine if you may be at risk of carrying MRSA. You may also have a swab taken from your nose, armpit and groin to test for MRSA

 

[Alphabetical]

http://www.londonbridgehospital.com/LBH/patient-info/mrsa/

Patients admitted to London Bridge Hospital, either as a inpatient or as a daycase, are screened for MRSA carriage by taking a swab from the anterior part of the nose (the most common site of staphylococcal carriage, including MRSA) and possibly other key body sites. Should the patient be an MRSA carrier, the procedure may be deferred pending eradication treatment, or if clinically necessary to proceed, will be nursed in strict isolation ("barrier nursing") to reduce the possibility of transmission to healthcare staff or other patients.

http://www.ramsayhealth.co.uk/private-patients/clinical-information/mrsa-screening.aspx

Screening for the presence of MRSA is a precautionary step which can prove vital as many patients entering hospitals have been shown to be carrying MRSA. if you are positive for MRSA then we can take measures both to protect you and others from infection with MRSA.

http://old.nuffieldhealth.com/Documents/policy%20documents/MRSA_Patient_Leaflet.pdf / http://old.nuffieldhealth.com/Health-Professionals/About-Us/Our-Quality-Standards/Nuffield-Health-Policy---MRSA-/

If you are due to come into hospital for an operation, Nuffield Health have a pre assessment programme which will involve asking questions to determine if you may be at risk of carrying MRSA. You may also have a swab taken from your nose, armpit and groin to test for MRSA

 

Since posting this I checked this out with some colleagues, I was advised that there is some screening that sometimes takes place not just for MRSA but all infections, it is very unlikely that you will be flat turned away but more often given a course of treatment before your operation to try and eradicate any problems. So you were right on one point, that some screening can take place. The main point I was making is that privately managed / owned hospitals are generally much cleaner and safe places to get treatment, not simply because of the money that goes into them but more importantly because of the way they are managed and maintained. Anyways, thanks for coming back with this info, its genuinely interesting.

[Kitty]

Wes is right.
Lot's of people carry the MRSA bug on their skin, this doesn't mean they infected, it just lives on them. These people are the source of infection for others who are susceptible.
All patients being admitted to private hospitals will be screened for MRSA before they arrive. If they are carrying the bacteria they will have a treatment to get rid of it before they are allowed into the hospital.
Lots of people who have planned admissions to NHS hospitals (e.g. for a knee operation) will have the same process done.
People who come into hospital through A&E are also screened for MRSA, but because it is an emergency they have to be admitted anyway, you can't send someone who's having a heart attack home and tell them to come back when their MRSA is gone.
The reason that private hospitals don't have MRSA is because they don't deal with emergency patients.

[Wes G]

http://www.londonbridgehospital.com/LBH/patient-info/mrsa/

Patients admitted to London Bridge Hospital, either as a inpatient or as a daycase, are screened for MRSA carriage by taking a swab from the anterior part of the nose (the most common site of staphylococcal carriage, including MRSA) and possibly other key body sites. Should the patient be an MRSA carrier, the procedure may be deferred pending eradication treatment, or if clinically necessary to proceed, will be nursed in strict isolation ("barrier nursing") to reduce the possibility of transmission to healthcare staff or other patients.

http://www.ramsayhealth.co.uk/private-patients/clinical-information/mrsa-screening.aspx

Screening for the presence of MRSA is a precautionary step which can prove vital as many patients entering hospitals have been shown to be carrying MRSA. if you are positive for MRSA then we can take measures both to protect you and others from infection with MRSA.

http://old.nuffieldhealth.com/Documents/policy%20documents/MRSA_Patient_Leaflet.pdf / http://old.nuffieldhealth.com/Health-Professionals/About-Us/Our-Quality-Standards/Nuffield-Health-Policy---MRSA-/

If you are due to come into hospital for an operation, Nuffield Health have a pre assessment programme which will involve asking questions to determine if you may be at risk of carrying MRSA. You may also have a swab taken from your nose, armpit and groin to test for MRSA

 

Since posting this I checked this out with some colleagues, I was advised that there is some screening that sometimes takes place not just for MRSA but all infections, it is very unlikely that you will be flat turned away but more often given a course of treatment before your operation to try and eradicate any problems. So you were right on one point, that some screening can take place. The main point I was making is that privately managed / owned hospitals are generally much cleaner and safe places to get treatment, not simply because of the money that goes into them but more importantly because of the way they are managed and maintained. Anyways, thanks for coming back with this info, its genuinely interesting.

Not as interesting as some of the attitudes within the sector its self.

[Alphabetical]

planned admissions to NHS hospitals (e.g. for a knee operation) will have the same process done.

Got it.

The reason that private hospitals don't have MRSA is because they don't deal with emergency patients.

Totally disagree with that statement.

I believe strongly that the reason there are high rates of MRSA infections in NHS hospitals and ZERO infections in private hospitals is not because they cater for A&E, nor because they are turned away from private hospitals as Wes G has claimed, but as i have said a number of times -

because poor management of budgets and facilities mean stretched resources, bad management practices, poor cleanliness and all because I believe hospitals are not being ran like businesses. I believe privatising hospitals so that companies bid the government for contracts to run hospitals, this would mean competition in the marketplace and standards, efficiencies, accountability etc would significantly improve.

However because there is no competition as the NHS is effectively a sate ran monopoly our NHS hospitals often massively under perform against their full potential

(and I'm not saying we should have an insurance system like the States. We pay plenty enough into the NHS for it to be free for all and still have very high standards of quality)

To back up what I am saying on the performance of privately ran hospitals from an MRSA standpoint:

http://www.uktreatment.com/why-the-uk/uk-infection-rates/

UK private hospitals are leading the way in the fight against MRSA, C. difficile and other hospital acquired infections. All hospitals now practise the much more rigorous hand hygiene with soap and water as well as hand gel (which is not that effective against C. difficile when used alone) that has been standard in private facilities for years.

AND

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/mrsa-action-uk/article/mrsa-action-uk-fear-that-infection-rates-will-rise-again-in-

Shadow health secretary said: "We know that high bed occupancy rates mean higher infection rate. The government promised to bring them down, but they went up.

"Now they claim not to have any targets, nor an assessment of what is needed. Once again, the government's complacency over tackling hospital infection is a disgrace."

Derek Butler
Chair
MRSA Action UK

AND

MRSA crisis is because the NHS is a state monopoly. Ministers are always making hospitals respond to the latest newspaper headlines rather than doing what is best in the overall interest of patients; hospital workers - like many employees of state industries - are demoralised and their pay rates are unresponsive, thus causing the local shortages. The state has also closed too many hospitals. The list of ways in which it has increased the risk is endless.

The dynamics of the private sector, meanwhile, are simpler and more effective. If you don't treat your customers well, you go out of business.

AND

http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/private-hospitals/hospital-infections-guide/

the high turnover of patients and high bed occupancy rates in our national health services compound the problem

AND

New control measures and a reduction in overcrowding in wards in NHS hospitals has done a great deal to bring UK infection rates down and the UK is now reporting the lowest rates of MRSA in its NHS hospitals since 2001. C. difficile rates of infection are also showing a promising downward trend.

UK infection rates in private hospitals were never as high as in communal wards in NHS hospitals, mainly because private patients have their own rooms.

Now I don't want to get stuck on finer detail, I'm making a general point here and it's solely my opinion, as an opinion I may be wrong and am willing to accept that. But lets zoom out from the MRSA topic, and look at the bigger picture. I know this is a hugely controversial topic and I pay taxes and use the NHS too, we all share the same goal - to have the most effective, efficient and conducive NHS possible. Whilst people think that profit = no values, that's simply not correct. Take BUPA, or WPA - Two of the leading private medical insurers in the UK, they are 'Provident' organisations that make profit, they re-invest their profit straight back into the organisations so that you can get better care, better drugs, better facilities, better waiting times, better training, better service.. Recently there has been the first takeover in the UK of an NHS hospital by a private company, there are strong opinions on both sides. I admit, there is much more of a movement against than for, but that doesn't mean the dominant force is correct.

the following link is a BBC article debating the first ever takeover of an NHS hospital in the UK by a private firm. The article goes into some detail from both perspectives and there is a video I would urge you to watch from a representative of the private health firm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15436685

Take a look at this article from the Guardian which I believe provides a balanced argument and I believe strengthens the argument for more privatisation "Open public services: Privatisation or innovation?

What will opening Britain's public services to competition mean? The TUC's Brendan Barber discusses the government's white paper with Red Tory author Phillip Blond...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/15/the-conversation-open-public-services

Lol at MRSA being a super bug.

It is on our skin now. Something like 90% of people carry it in their noses.

Yeah I know where you're coming from, it's not Bubonic Plague or Smallpox..

By Super bug, I understand the definition to mean "A strain of bacteria that has become resistant to antibiotic drugs."

MRSA is certainly defined as a Superbug, Please read Resistant Pathogens number 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_bug_%28bacteria%29

People get attacked by it in hospitals because their immune system is shot to shit and because people don't wash their hands as instructed when entering a ward.

Agreed in addition to my comments above, not because hospitals have A&E departments 

Of course private healthcare works better, it's an entirely different business model as every element is for profit. The NHS is not.

 

But remember people, I know we are liberals and all that, but profit does not simply =  . If you believe it does and we are better off with no competition and the state in control of all of our budgets and public services then you might like living somewhere like North Korea lol

Anyways a very long and protracted post, I hope I haven't insulted anyone to wake up in the morning with a hate thread dedicated to me, I'm merely wearing my heart on my sleave and sharing my opinions about how our healthcare system could be changed for the better. I actively sell IT solutions directly into the NHS, I've got strong ethical standards and believe me whilst I work for a business, we don't only care about profits. Our number one goal in everything we do, is the customer, and that end customer is you and me

[Ray Pennybody]

Points taken that reform is needed (only a mug would think some sort of reform wasn't pertinent). But the currently tabled plans... If GPs (supposedly one of the main beneficiaries) don't want these reforms then surely that is a very ominous sign?

[Wes G]

I've got strong ethical standards and believe me whilst I work for a business, we don't only care about profits. Our number one goal in everything we do, is the customer, and that end customer is you and me

The rest of that post was drivel, this part how ever is imo the devil in the detail. u say u dont care about profits, or that your care extends further than profit margins, yet still feel the need to call people customers. Liberal you say? i dont think so, its more like brainwashed.