Post Comment: Who takes the blame for obscene losses?
THE losses on a NHS contract with a private sector firm are becoming obscene.
The five-year, Government-imposed deal, was supposed to reduce the pressure on the NHS by giving patients an alternative clinic to attend for orthopaedic operations.
Under the arrangement, soon to expire, patients are given the choice of going to a clinic at Barlborough, a remote outpost off junction 30 of the M1, or receiving treatment at the City Hospital or the QMC.
Overwhelmingly, Nottingham patients have chosen to stay in Nottingham.
Of the £9m spent so far by the city's health service on the contract, which is with Care UK, only £4m has been used for operations. The rest of the public money has filled the coffers of the private sector.
The problem is the contract. It commits the NHS to spending a minimum amount with the firm, regardless of the uptake of operations.
Today, NHS Nottingham City openly admits it is "haemorrhaging" cash.
In April, less than 1% of the slots at Barlborough allocated to Nottingham patients were filled. In that month alone, the city's NHS spent £312,000 with Care UK but only £9,000 worth of operations were done.
This loss of money is shocking in a city where there are major health needs.
It is regrettable that Nottingham signed up to this ill-conceived contract. It has been clear from the outset that the deal was a disaster for Nottingham.
Nothing has been done that has stemmed the flow of public funds. Our health officials have been unable to sort it out, so the Department of Health should have stepped in – after all, central Government created this problem.
2 Comments
by Mr B J Mann, Nottingham
Tuesday, August 11 2009, 8:13PM
“Surely this can't be true!
"Bosses at Barlborough Treatment Centre.... are proud of the quality of treatment..... point to near 100% satisfaction rates, state-of-the-art facilities..... whole programme is now running at close to 90% capacity" - what's that remind you of - (Treatment centre contracts slammed, Post, June 22).
Yet:
"Health bosses in Nottingham admit they are "haemorrhaging cash" through a contract with a treatment centre little used by city patients.....where we could improve resources better elsewhere! (City NHS 'bleeding cash' on treatment deal, Post, August 04, 2009).
How can it be when, here in this very city, working for our very own council, we have that contract negotiator par excellence, that great legal brain, that expert on all matters PFI, the man we can all rely on to guarantee the best deal for the public even when faced with the most cunning and experienced private enterprise legal team:
I give you..........
Labour Councillor Steeeeeeeeve BARber!
After all, if he could sew up the NET contract so tightly that he can guarantee that we, the citizen, will always win, and they, the tram providers will always lose, surely he must have been consulted before this contract was signed.
Oh, but, just a minute, if you could guarantee a contract where the council will always win and the supplier will always lose, you wouldn't expect anyone to sign up to it first time round.
And if they did, the only thing you could guarantee is that they won't be making that mistake again!
.”
by Bill, Keyworth
Tuesday, August 04 2009, 9:32PM
“If you researched your Comment you would find that the doctors and the staff from the call centre arranging for consultations rarely mention Barlborough unless pressed. This has been going on for a long time now. You fail to mention that, whilst Barlborough may be further away it provides shorter waiting times, door to door transport, free car parking and phonecalls to patients as well as a much more personal service to the patients.
I think it is time you got back to the real investigative journalism that the EP was once proud to offer. I suppose it is easy to input what a spokesperson says without establishing all the facts. See how many people travel from Barnsley to use the facilities as well as those from Lincolnshire. What about sending a reporter up there and see what is on offer or would that not be cost effective or within budget?”