Mr Lansley Says...

IT IS ALL HERE.......

Mr Lansley Says......

Of course, the NHS has to make changes as opportunities arise and new technologies and medicines emerge. But we cannot have change for change's sake.

Some of these closures, or reconfigurations, of local services are based on disputed or flawed evidence, and do not pay due attention to clinical opinion. Some have lacked real public engagement beyond a cursory consultation. Most do not reflect the choices that patients or GPs would make if they were in control.

Unfortunately, I cannot re-open previously concluded processes nor halt those that have passed the point of no return, with contracts signed or building work started. But the majority of cases are ongoing and we have an opportunity for a new approach.

As of today, I am calling a halt to the current process. I have asked Sir David Nicholson, the chief executive of the NHS, to inform the service of this immediately and to signal a complete change to the way we deal with these issues. This moratorium will provide a chance to reset every proposal, to reconsider every decision and to ensure that in each case they are consistent with the following key criteria.

First, there must be clarity about the clinical evidence base underpinning the proposals. Second, they must have the support of the GP commissioners involved. Third, they must genuinely promote choice for their patients. Fourth, the process must have genuinely engaged the public, patients and local authorities.

This will not merely be another tick-box exercise – it will be a tough test, which every proposal must pass if it is to proceed.

WE SAY>>>>> TELL THE SHA TO END THE PROCESS AT THIS WEEKS STAKEHOLDER PANEL>>>>

TIME TO PUT THIS PRIVATISATION PROCESS TO BED>>>>
IT HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED>>>> IT HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSULTED WITH THE PUBLIC>>>>
AND IT IS NOT CLINICALLY BASED>>>

Leaflets

Mr Salt the Independent candidate is looking for help with leaflet delivery - if you can help in St Neots or St Ives area feel free to phone me 07984 413839

Hustings

Well it's the Hunts Post hustings tomorrow and how it has all changed....

It is not a Tory rally to put down Labour and Lib Dems as originally planned, poor ticket take up has led for the organisers to invite the other candidates along.

Perhaps now we will get a proper debate and also get the answers we need about the Privatisation of Hinchingbrooke and where the Candidates stand, before you vote.

The doorstep visits have highlighted the Peoples disgust and outrage at the process to Privatise Hinchingbrooke and the NHS , they are disgusted at Labour for instigating it under their watch and the Tories as it is their Policy too.

Please try and go to the Hustings tomorrow.....

We say Thanks.... We WILL run the hospital..... AND kick out the Private Sector...We will put the current management in charge and go forth and run Hinchingbrooke for Huntingdonshire... Bring It On

Labour Manifesto

Today, Labour set the Manifesto today on health......

the points in it are

ON HEALTH

* Patients in England guaranteed to get results of cancer tests within a
week
* Maximum 18-week wait for treatment after initial GP consultation or private treatment will be offered
* Routine health checks for those aged 40 to 74, aimed at preventing heart
attacks and strokes
* National Care Service to ensure free care in the home for those with
thegreatest needs and a cap on the costs of residential care
* Every hospital to become a foundation trust, with more freedom to run its
own affairs

SO MR BROWN...... STOP THE PRIVATISATION OF HINCHINGBROOKE, WRITE OFF THE GOVERNEMENT INDUCED DEBT AND SET HINCHINGBROOKE FREE TO BECOME A FOUNDATION TRUST AND DO IT NOW.....

Why is the Hospital not mentioned?

I note from the former M.P, now Conservative Party Candidate for Huntingdonshire his website....he asks

As you go to the polling booth on 6th May, I ask that you consider the last 13 years and ask yourself the following questions:

* Are my family’s savings, pensions and jobs more secure?
* Are we as internationally respected and do we support our armed forces?
* Have our civil liberties improved?
* Am I less likely to be the victim of violent crime?
* Have we got a good deal in Europe, signing up to Lisbon with no referendum?
* Are our borders more secure and immigration controlled?
* Is our economy stronger and more competitive?

If you believe, as I do, the answer to these questions is no – there is only one political party that can reverse our nation’s slide towards failure, the Conservative Party.

So where in the above 7 questions does it refer to Hinchingbrooke Hospital or the NHS...It doesn't
One of the questions should be "Do You Want Hinchingbrooke Privatised?" ...but that is not there.... I wonder Why.... probably because Privatising the NHS is Tory Health Policy...

Vote Wisely......

Who do I vote For

Good question, who do you vote for.....

For me, the Hospital is under the threat of Privatisation, yes Privatisation it is no matter what the candidates say to you..... A Franchise is a means for an entrepreneur to make money by using a successful business model....

So lets look at the candidates......and consider that the "franchise" idea came from a Labour government, Bevan must be turning in his grave.... The Tories health policy is to "open up the NHS to other providers" ...again Privatisation of the NHS.... Lib Dems have not committed themselves yet to an answer.... Greens,the Loony Party are agreeing that it should be public as does Jonathan Salt. In fact, the A14, Guided Bus and Pathfinder house were the Election issues....until Jonathan Salt came along to support the Hospital and our campaign to keep it public.
Nick Clegg like Jonathan Salt, calls for the Strategic Health Authorities to be scrapped and needless to say we agaree and should that happen then the Privatisation, by this unelected Quango , of Hinchingbrooke would stop....

So, Who do you vote for..... Well if you want Hinchingbrooke to stay in public hands.... Not Labour or Conservatives.... If you want to keep it public..... vote for any of the others.... if you think the parties are corrupt..... Vote Independent.... BUT whatever you do..... Vote... a Vote not cast is a wasted Vote

Guided Busway

The Truth behind the bus way and what a waste of Tax payers money it is......

And it still Isn't running yet

They were obviously hoping that it would be there or almost there before the local and General Elections - for whatever reason, other than incompetence the Tory Councilors must be disappointed that their work on the doorstep is going to be very difficult this time.

I have delivered leaflets for the Lib Dems and I am also working with the Independent candidate at the General Election as Save Hinchingbrooke is A-Political and not affiliated to any party.
I was with Mr Salt, Independent on Saturday and he was in Huntingdon town centre.
In the main he got a good reception but there were many people who were NOT going to VOTE..... the main reason..... The Expenses and no Trust in the Tories locally and to top that the old "Tories always get in here" argument. Needless to say I always urge people to vote..... the ONLY wasted vote is one that is not cast.

Guided Bus Article

Report To County Council

make your own minds up whether the Council are incompetent and should, now £40m in the red because of the guided bus.....should ,like Hinchingbrooke, be put out for Franchise.....?

Election issue

a month ago I was speaking to Keep Our NHS Public and they said that Hinchingbrooke should become a General Election issue..... I agreed but was a little unsure how we could achieve it.
I was called up by Jonathan Salt to discuss the Save Hinchingbrooke Campaign and he was interested as to how the historic debt came about

We discussed at length and he agreed also that the Hospital should be an election issue too.
Since then Jonathan has chosen to run for the Huntingdon seat and I have agreed to work with him on this journey.
The Campaign is still strong and we are having an awareness day on the 24th April 2010 so that the People of Huntingdon know the TRUTH about the Privatisation, I say privatisation as our local M.P see's fit that this is played down, however it is the truth. Now Conservative policy is to open up the NHS to outsiders...or rather Privatise it all, so the conservatives buddies can put their noses in the NHS trough to cherry pick the goodies.
Interestingly, Nick Clegg of the Lib Dems has the same view as Jonathan Salt.... Scrap the Strategic Health Authorities.... unelected bureaucrats....a Quango and waste of Tax PAyers cash and meddling with the likes of Hinchingbrooke...... lets start making savings NOW...... Scrap the SHA & Stop the Hinchingbrooke Privatisation.

I wonder how many feel the same?

Lobby Your MP

To stop the Privatisation of Hinchingbrooke and the NHS all from your seat

Here is the Lobby Form

Fill in the form

Opinions

We all have our opinions and we will all have the chance to use that opinion to vote in the upcoming election.
Now before you vote consider what candidates say......

Mr Salt is campaigning against the Privatisation of Hinchngbrooke end of, clear and concise, yet Mr Djanogly, the sitting MP, is saying that he “simply did not buy” the union view that this would lead to the privatisation of the hospital.
Now we all know from debates in the house that Mr Djanogly was confronted by a member claiming that "The hon. Gentleman clearly has a jaundiced view of trade unions."
This probably is why Mr Djanogly is playing down the issue of Privatisation, lets face it the staff at Hinchingbrooke might be NHS staff under the Privatisation plans yet they WILL be working for the PRIVATE sector.
SO what part of this process is not PRIVATISATION?..... none of it
And with Conservative Health Policy gunning to Privatise the NHS as a whole the election is about your health care.... Free or do you want a service that is destroyed for profit, like the Gas/Electric/Trains/Buses/Cleaning in Hospitals.....

If these are the answer

See the link to open the document, this will inform you of how the bidders to Privatise Hinchingbrooke are NOT fit for purpose

Here is the Document that tells all you needs to know

Circle Health

Circle Health claims to be a different type of company, and has been proclaimed as basing itself on the “John Lewis” model of “partnership”, with 2,000 clinicians. But half of the company is owned by big financial institutions, and this is the source of the funding for a planned network of 30 new hospitals at a cost of almost £1 billion (Times Online).
Its brand new £30m showpiece hospital in Bath, lavishly spacious, designed by Lord Foster ‘s team and feted by the media for its innovative design, has just 28 beds – less than 10% of the capacity of a very different hospital in Hinchingbrooke, and of course has no facilities for emergencies or for patients with complex medical or surgical needs. And while Circle’s boss Ali Parsa, an investment banker, talks a good talk, there is no evidence that his company – accustomed to the generous budgets and relaxed, stress-free environment of private medicine – is capable of managing anything on the scale of an NHS general hospital.
Their website also confirms that Circle has no real grasp or experience of a busy and pressurised hospital environment. The company is aiming to open”surgical clinics and GP centres” where its surgeons can perform consultations and procedures that do not have to happen in a hospital setting in specialities such as dermatology, ophthalmology, ENT and plastic surgery. This, claims Circle, “drives down the price of healthcare by avoiding the unnecessary infrastructure of a hospital”. In addition, Circle says it will offer “services such as diagnostics, chronic disease management and post-operative homecare” through a mobile infrastructure and in peoples' homes. Again no evidence of appropriate experience in running a large and complex hospital.
Nor does Circle’s track record with NHS care inspire any confidence: in 2007 Circle Health took over Nations Healthcare, a company running three “independent sector treatment centres” with NHS contracts (Eccleshill in Bradford, Burton and Nottingham). Nations had been the company in charge of Eccleshill when a patient, Dr John Hubley, died after surgery because the centre did not keep any emergency supplies of blood on site. The scandal was exposed on BBC’s Panorama, and the coroner said at the inquest on Dr Hubley that he would most probably have survived if his operation had been carried out at Bradford Royal Infirmary, describing the centre’s policies as “Mickey Mouse”.
The takeover by Circle may have changed the management structure, but it has not substantially increased the performance of the treatment centres, which have delivered well short of the level of treatment stipulated in their £324m worth of NHS contracts. According to the latest official figures (April 2009) the Nottingham Treatment Centre was running at just 72% of contract, Burton at 76% and Eccleshill at 87%, leaving Nations 25% below contracted activity – equivalent to £82m of taxpayers’ money for treatment not delivered.
But at the end of last year, the local paper reported that Circle’s Barlborough Treatment Centre had delivered just £41,000 worth of operations in exchange for guaranteed payments of £791,000 in 2009, and had delivered just £4m of work for a £9m contract, to expire this year. (Nottingham Evening Post November 13).

Ramsay Health Care

Ramsay is Australia’s largest private healthcare provider. It is part of the NHS Partners Network group of private health providers that challenged the procurement process at NHS Great Yarmouth & Waveney (along with Acevo).
Ramsay operates nine “Independent Sector Treatment Centres”, and is the fourth largest provider of private hospitals in England, having bought 22 small hospitals from Capio UK for £193m in 2007.
Ramsay’s managing director Pat Grier told the Guardian that his group had been attracted to Britain because of “significant growth upside due to the shift towards outsourcing NHS services to the private sector” (Guardian 28 October 2007).
More recently the company has been reported in Healthcare Europa as bragging over the way in which it has increased profit margins in the UK hospitals it took over from Capio, with Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA) increased from 20% to more than 25% in the first year and again to over 30% in year two. (http://www.healthcareeuropa.com/articles/20100322)
Ramsay’s ISTCs may be generating guaranteed profits for the company, but the latest official figures show that they are delivering as little as 66% of contracted activity in one unit, with five out of nine delivering less than 80%. Of the total of £244m it is being paid for contracts, Ramsay’s ISTCs are being paid almost £56m for operations that are not delivered.
In Southampton the Ramsay-operated ISTC has been so unpopular that GPs have been directed to over-ride the principle of “patient choice” and refer elective patients only to the ISTC where services were running well below contracted levels, and not to the local University hospital where most patients had chosen to have their treatment (BMA News Review October 10 2009).

The Truth Behind the companies involved in the Privatisation of Hinchingbrooke

Serco

Serco is a large multinational corporation, employing 40,000 staff and turning over more than £2 billion. It appears to be even less appropriate as a potential management of a complex and busy general hospital than the other two shortlisted firms since it has no experience at all of any kind of hospital management.
Its own website claims that Serco employs just 300 “doctors and nurses” – a tiny fraction of the Hinchingbrooke Hospital workforce – in “a range of primary and community settings”. These turn out to be “'Out of Hours' Care, healthcare in prisons, nursing support as well as many major new health initiatives such as the Department of Health's programme to evaluate telehealth.” So the company itself effectively admits to having no experience of managing clinical services in a major hospital.
Instead it is best known as a services company that runs the Docklands Light Railway, operates speed cameras, electronically tags young offenders, and has contracts with the Ministry of Defence, Home Office and Department of Transport.
Its most prominent involvement in the NHS includes its involvement as a partner in various Private Finance Initiative consortia, some of which have been “successful” in completing new hospitals (Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital and Scotland’s Wishaw General Hospital) while one other (Leicestershire) has ended in an expensive failure, with the project cancelled as a result of spiralling and unaffordable costs, and Serco joining with its partners to sue for compensation.

An NHS Burning and in Chaos

Although the rhetoric of ‘choice’ implies patients having a greater variety of health care options from which to choose, the reality is that patients and communities are experiencing a range of closures, cut-backs and disruptions to their local services

This reveals an NHS in a state of shambles and disorder. No one can argue that the
various assaults upon the NHS are the result of patients’ choices or the culling of inefficient services (as claimed by the prophets of market competition). They are the result of a transition from an NHS based on rational, needs-based health planning towards a health service that will increasingly be run by private
companies and guided by a capricious and unforgiving market. Centrally imposed demands to meet government targets prior to the last elections have also aided and abetted the disastrous organisational reforms to the NHS.

The Secretary of State for Health is quick to blame financial deficits on individual hospital trusts and PCTs.
But a proper analysis of the deficits and their widespread nature clearly points to problems inherent in the government’s own reforms.

The crisis in the NHS, reflected only in part by the list of closures, cut-backs and disruptions, appears to be veering out of control, and is in danger of bringing the NHS to a point of collapse. It is not inconceivable that this is the desired aim of government policy – the more avid supporters of marketisation feel that a proper market will only be established when the NHS disappears.

Profits Before Patients

Under John Major.s Conservative government in 1996-97, after 18 years of Tory rule, the NHS was spending just £200 million a year on buying in treatment from private hospitals and clinics.
By 2007, if the Labour government.s current proposals are carried through, this will have increased tenfold.

New private hospitals and treatment centres are being built, with more planned, and in some cases existing NHS facilities - built with taxpayers. money, or expensively funded through the Private Finance Initiative at the expense of the NHS - are to be handed over to private sector operators as part of the new arrangements.

Private sector preference
The government plan to funnel new money preferentially into the private sector rather that adopt the cheaper and easier policy of expanding NHS provision, has led to a dramatic expansion of commercial medicine. The private health care sector in the UK has always been a relatively small and marginal operation, feeding off historic NHS waiting lists, poaching NHS staff, shunning emergencies and complex cases, and focusing exclusively on acute (short stay) services: but until recently it was running with only around half of the beds occupied in its (generally very small) hospitals. Now a massive increase in the numbers of NHS patients being
treated in private beds means that the traditional paying patients will only represent just over half of the caseload in private beds, with as many as 45% paid for by the NHS.
This is effectively a huge cash subsidy to enable the expansion of a private sector which will inevitably draw on the same pool of human and financial resources as the NHS, but divert a percentage of those resources from patient care to pay dividends to their shareholders.

To foster an expansion of private care to enable it to develop a sustainable market., ministers have set out to bring in commercial health care companies from around the world, and also offered private hospitals very generous contracts, paying up to 40% above the prevailing costs within the NHS, lavish subsidies towards start-up costs for new private hospitals, and guaranteed payment even for those private providers who treat fewer patients than planned.

Far from delivering new and expanded services and capacity the private sector is
increasingly competing to capture existing NHS caseload, diverting vital funds from
NHS to the commercial sector.

What exactly is Serco?

Serco is one of a new breed of company that could be termed a ‘public sector corporation’ as approximately 98% of its turnover and revenue are derived from contracts outsourced by public bodies. These projects include operating speed cameras, electronically tagging offenders and running the Manchester Metrolink. Serco has governmental links at the highest level.ii It is involved in controversial PFIschemes, and has PFI, PPP and joint venture contracts with the MoD, Home Office and Department of Transport. It even runs airports in Iraq for the US and has counter-terrorist contracts including detecting radiological substances coming into the UK. Serco’s revenue in 2005 was £2.26bn, up 38% from the previous year, with profit before tax up 28.5%.