NHS goes multinational

[pdq1]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19328105

Good idea or not?

[youngmafbog]

Well since they cant manage their way out of a paper bag or run a commercial business I have serious doubts.

Potentially it is a good idea, but I just think the ~NHS is so entrenched in being a Government body with no competition they will be eaten alive.

[Gromit]

Cameron and Clegg promised no privatisation of the NHS.

Setting up commercially run for profit subsidiaries, sure sounds like privatisation to me.

[ummmm]

Can't believe it took this long.

[Sqad]

This was started years ago.......under Labour.
It was their idea....and a good one too.

[anotheoldgit]

Will valuable NHS staff be taken from the UK to initially set it up?

[emmie]

no, but it has been happening for some time, so we can't lay the entire blame for this on the current coalition, for once.

[emmie]

One hospital, think it's Moorfields has been operating in a private capacity for a number of years in Dubai, sanctioned by the Labour party. See if can find that link.

[emmie]

there you go Gromit

http://www.moorfields...outus/MoorfieldsDubai

[Old_Geezer]

I am uncomfortable with it. If the government think there is a nationalised opportunity for foreign .medical service provision why not set up a different organisation and prevent possible conflicts of interests ? It looks to me to be one of those schemes that seem a chance to benefit on the surface, but then proves to generate issues in practice. Folk pay in to an obligatory health insurance scheme, not an investment opportunity, and I'd be happier if the 2 issues remained separate.

[emmie]

I don't like this at all, we are squeezed for resources here, so why are we sending doctors to foreign countries that have cost the taxpayer here for their training. They charge patients overseas fine, but how will we know, or do know that the costs, money comes back to NHS in Britain.

[LazyGun]

Seems like commercialism for the sake of it, to me - at least, on the surface.
I suppose providing no UK staff or resources were employed in these proposed institutions, and providing that private patients from such endevours did not take precedence over UK NHS patients, then it might be a useful way of generating some income........................

[emmie]

they are UK trained doctors sent overseas, so that is costing us here, no?

[pdq1]

///Will valuable NHS staff be taken from the UK to initially set it up///

They are my concerns also. Already in the UK some doctors put their private patients before those in the NHS so whats to stop them earning an easier faster buck by operating abroad. So the waiting lists will go up and up.

They say money earned abroad will be fed back to the NHS. But you can imagine it will do just that but however will be put into the NHS overall pot and will not be in addition to the governments funding.

[emmie]

there are so many wrongs about this, they say it's to add money into the NHS pot, but surely we need all the doctors, nurses here, not swanning off treating rich Arabs, Russians and anyone who could afford to have private treatment here in Britain.

[Sqad]

Oh! dear, for 50 years we have been taking doctors and nurses from other, mainly underdeveloped countries e,g India, Pakistan, Mauritius to keep the NHS viable and now the suggestion that parts of the NHS should do the same in other countries have brought howls of protests from certain ABers.

What is good for the goose is clearly not good for the gander.

/////Setting up commercially run for profit subsidiaries, sure sounds like privatisation to me.///

Privatization is already well established in the NHS (supported by Labour) and will increase over the years.

We will not lose doctors in the NHS as the terms of service in hospitals and particularly in GP are excellent, guaranteed and not effort related.......and the doctors know this.

This scheme will NOT affect the District General Hospitals, but only the prestigious units which some already have a well established base abroad.

An excellent idea in my opinion for generating cash for a system that may well be in financial meltdown.

[emmie]

more money is pumped into the NHS than ever, so how is it possible it's in meltdown

[Sqad]

em.......pouring money into a business doesn't guarantee survival.

3 trusts have already been named as on the point of bankruptcy......do you believe that they are the only ones?

[slaney]

I'm with Lazygun on this - maybe, if the conditions were right.

Sqad I agree those hospitals are not the only ones at risk, but this is not due to financial mismanagement on the part of the Trusts, but rather to the toxic and indefensible PFI debt.
The Treasury Select Committee found PFI to be an "extremely inefficient" way of financing projects.
http://www.telegraph....35bn-in-PFI-debt.html
http://www.guardian.c.../29/pfi-crippling-nhs
http://www.guardian.c...6/nhs-trust-debt-tory

[Sqad]

Thanks slaney...I have rad all the links, but do not understand much of the contents which is a reflection on me and not the reports.

It would seem that whatever name you put on this PFI etc, somewhere along the line there was mismanagement, either at local or Governmental level. I must say reading all posts concerning NHS management and finance, I am completely confused...it is complicated and difficult to follow......so, slaney..we are OK then?

[boxtops]

The foreign countries (one way or another) would be paying for the services, the intention isn't that an NHS-funded hospital would be set up which is free to attend. One argument is that we regularly train thousands of healthcare workers from other countries, many of whom do their training, get their qualification, then go back home - why not keep them working for the NHS but in another land? It wouldn't be UK taxpayers funding it - and it is already happening, albeit in a small way.