To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 572:
571) "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Don't make me laugh.
(John Banville: The Book of Evidence)
Dear Mr Clark,
The grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented have now all become commonplace at RICS' Ombudsman Services:Property and NHS' Livewell Southwest Ltd.
Those managers who so successfully captured capitalism, ably aided and abetted by their political accomplices and those regulators who seem disinclined to assert themselves, are free to develop ever newer practices designed specifically not to work in the customer's, or democracy's, interests.
As a consequence, facts, in recent times, have had a torrid time of it and have all but disappeared from Ombudsman Services' annual reports.
It is becoming ever easier for the powerful to get away with it. That's criminal. It's a fact.
In the Age of the Ombudsman, the guilty walk free whilst their victims are left powerless, struggling to make sense of the grotesque decisions they've been handed. It's the injustice of private civil justice.
Rather than face the embarrassment of attempting to explain the mountain of damning evidence that had been accumulating annually since its inception in 2008/9, the Ombudsman Service, CEO, The Rev Smith, ably aided and abetted by his Chair, Dame Janet Finch, has apparently chosen to attempt to bury it and thereby cover their tracks. However, their DNA is all over the crime scene. It's in the company's minutes, the customer satisfaction reports and ombudsman's decisions - the ones not arrived at in a logical manner.
Headlines in this weekend's Sunday news and fake-newspapers suggest that things are only set to worsen in post-Brexit Britain. For example:
Independent - "Amber Rudd says child refugee criticism is fake news."
Telegraph - "'Hugely disastrous consequences' Bank of England deputy warns Chancellor against low tax, low regulation economy."
Daily Mail - "Immigration will NOT suddenly fall after Brexit says Amber Rudd as ministers consider five-year ban on benefits for new arrivals."
Guardian - "The Guardian view: Big data - the danger is less democracy."
Independent - "Hedge-fund billionaire and Donald Trump backer, 'played key role in Brexit campaign.'"
Information or misinformation? Facts or fiction? News or fake-news?
In, "The power of information: from policy to implementation" Catherine Gleeson said," The time is now ripe for more transparency in the NHS in wake of problems of a 'closed culture' which was a major factor in the national scandals of persistent poor standards." (Catherine Gleeson Community Practitioner 86.9 Sep 2013)
Although the time was clearly ripe for more transparency (and accountability) we got less, thereby creating the perfect conditions for those with the means, the motive and the opportunity to rig markets and the democracy that supposedly polices them.
The Establishment has long known about the persistent poor standards in health and civil justice but grotesquely continues to do what it does best - look after its own selfish interests.
Otherwise things would be different.
Q. Mr Clark, when is the Prime Minister going to heed her own advice and stand up, challenged the vested interests of the RICS' OS:P and the NHS' Livewell Southwest Ltd and right the wrong of their anonymous and illogical decisions?
Monday, 27 February 2017
Monday, 20 February 2017
The Real Enemies Of The people. (571)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 571.
571) The Real Enemies Of The People.
Dear Mr Clark,
Wouldn't you agree that once again, Mr Harmsworth's Daily Mail has got it wrong and the enemies of the people weren't those three judges after all. They were just doing a good job at being impartial with their judgements. A concept alien to Daily Mail comment writers.
The real enemies of the people are all around us. Apart from the Daily Mail comment writers they are;
1) Anonymous NHS Desk Top Reviewers who hand their patients - to whom they supposed owe a duty of care - a one line unsubstantiated sentence and massive bill for the cost of their nursing care.
2) Property Ombudsman who hand complainants decisions that are not arrived at in a logical manner.
3) NHS executives who keep the public waiting for months -often years - for responses to their complaints.
4) Ombudsman Services Chief Executives who maladminister consumers' complaints.
5) Ombudsman Services Chief Executives who keep members of the public waiting months - sometimes years - for responses to their complaints.
6) Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) that do not collate and publish data on how many members of the public are refused NHS funded nursing care.
7) CCGs that do not collate and publish data on members of the public who appeal NHS decisions on NHS funded nursing care and who then lose those appeals.
8) Ombudsman Services' senior executives who eviscerate data on their performance in handling consumers' complaints so as to comply with the RICS Memorandum of Understanding on resolving disputes effectively.
9) Civil servants who claim to be monitoring redress schemes they approved on behalf of the British people, but who don't.
10) Press and politicians who know that these scandals are a daily occurrence yet choose to do nothing about it.
And this is just for starters.
The real enemies of the people are very well organised. They own the level playing field or are in the process of privatising it, have removed one set of goalposts - their own - and bribed the referee. It will make the people's victory all the more sweeter when it eventually comes.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 571.
571) The Real Enemies Of The People.
Dear Mr Clark,
Wouldn't you agree that once again, Mr Harmsworth's Daily Mail has got it wrong and the enemies of the people weren't those three judges after all. They were just doing a good job at being impartial with their judgements. A concept alien to Daily Mail comment writers.
The real enemies of the people are all around us. Apart from the Daily Mail comment writers they are;
1) Anonymous NHS Desk Top Reviewers who hand their patients - to whom they supposed owe a duty of care - a one line unsubstantiated sentence and massive bill for the cost of their nursing care.
2) Property Ombudsman who hand complainants decisions that are not arrived at in a logical manner.
3) NHS executives who keep the public waiting for months -often years - for responses to their complaints.
4) Ombudsman Services Chief Executives who maladminister consumers' complaints.
5) Ombudsman Services Chief Executives who keep members of the public waiting months - sometimes years - for responses to their complaints.
6) Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) that do not collate and publish data on how many members of the public are refused NHS funded nursing care.
7) CCGs that do not collate and publish data on members of the public who appeal NHS decisions on NHS funded nursing care and who then lose those appeals.
8) Ombudsman Services' senior executives who eviscerate data on their performance in handling consumers' complaints so as to comply with the RICS Memorandum of Understanding on resolving disputes effectively.
9) Civil servants who claim to be monitoring redress schemes they approved on behalf of the British people, but who don't.
10) Press and politicians who know that these scandals are a daily occurrence yet choose to do nothing about it.
And this is just for starters.
The real enemies of the people are very well organised. They own the level playing field or are in the process of privatising it, have removed one set of goalposts - their own - and bribed the referee. It will make the people's victory all the more sweeter when it eventually comes.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Friday, 17 February 2017
Ombudsman Services. Livewell Southwest Ltd. Data. Hans Rosling 1948-2017. (570)
To the Business, Energy and industrial Strategy secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 569.
570) Ombudsman Services. Livewell Southwest ltd. Data. Hans Rosling 1948-2017.
Dear Mr Clark,
Hans Rosling was a Swedish physician, academic, public speaker and statistician. He died on the 7th Feb 2017.
Facts were important to Hans Rosling. For him, facts were more important than myths.
Claire Provost wrote,
"Giving the timing, with all the talk about fake news, alternative facts, concern over misinformation and propaganda-by-numbers, Rosling stood for the exact opposite - the idea we can have debates about what could or should be done, but that facts and an open mind are needed before informed discussions can begin."
(www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/07/hans-rosling-obituary)
Isabella Lovin, Sweden's Deputy Prime Minister said on Facebook,
"I think the whole world will miss his vision and his way of standing up for the facts - unfortunately, it feels they are necessary more than ever at the moment - so the loss is even more painful."
We need facts and an open mind before informed discussions can begin.
The RICS' Ombudsman Services:Property and the NHS' Livewell Southwest Ltd have done their utmost, it would appear, to ensure that no meaningful facts see the light of day and as a consequence no debate and no informed discussions are permitted to take place.
Discussions which open all of our minds to what it is that is really going on behind the scenes at these two organisations.
It seems that the minds of the OFT monitors of this government approved redress schemes weren't focussed 100% on the job in hand. The OFT wrote to us saying,
"I can assure you, however, that the OFT receives copies of the surveys in question and will take into account their findings as part of our ongoing monitoring of OSP's redress scheme..
I have investigated this matter and understand that OSP have confirmed that the new company (replacing DJS Research) will ask the same questions as those used on previous surveys, with the addition of some new ones about the OSP website."
(Head or ERCC oft Our ref: EPIC/ENQ/E/138617 8th Feb 2013)
Q. Mr Clark, what surveys would that be? There don't appear to be any - why is that?
To Claire Provost's list of fake news, alternative facts, misinformation and propaganda by numbers we can now add - OSP surveys and a NHS embargo on statistics.
Mr Clark, as a tribute to the work and memory of Hans Rosling, why not go to www.ombudsman-services.org and compare DJS Research's thoroughly independent and highly revealing surveys with what exists now. It is the very least anyone with an open mind and belief in truth and justice could and should do.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 569.
570) Ombudsman Services. Livewell Southwest ltd. Data. Hans Rosling 1948-2017.
Dear Mr Clark,
Hans Rosling was a Swedish physician, academic, public speaker and statistician. He died on the 7th Feb 2017.
Facts were important to Hans Rosling. For him, facts were more important than myths.
Claire Provost wrote,
"Giving the timing, with all the talk about fake news, alternative facts, concern over misinformation and propaganda-by-numbers, Rosling stood for the exact opposite - the idea we can have debates about what could or should be done, but that facts and an open mind are needed before informed discussions can begin."
(www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/07/hans-rosling-obituary)
Isabella Lovin, Sweden's Deputy Prime Minister said on Facebook,
"I think the whole world will miss his vision and his way of standing up for the facts - unfortunately, it feels they are necessary more than ever at the moment - so the loss is even more painful."
We need facts and an open mind before informed discussions can begin.
The RICS' Ombudsman Services:Property and the NHS' Livewell Southwest Ltd have done their utmost, it would appear, to ensure that no meaningful facts see the light of day and as a consequence no debate and no informed discussions are permitted to take place.
Discussions which open all of our minds to what it is that is really going on behind the scenes at these two organisations.
It seems that the minds of the OFT monitors of this government approved redress schemes weren't focussed 100% on the job in hand. The OFT wrote to us saying,
"I can assure you, however, that the OFT receives copies of the surveys in question and will take into account their findings as part of our ongoing monitoring of OSP's redress scheme..
I have investigated this matter and understand that OSP have confirmed that the new company (replacing DJS Research) will ask the same questions as those used on previous surveys, with the addition of some new ones about the OSP website."
(Head or ERCC oft Our ref: EPIC/ENQ/E/138617 8th Feb 2013)
Q. Mr Clark, what surveys would that be? There don't appear to be any - why is that?
To Claire Provost's list of fake news, alternative facts, misinformation and propaganda by numbers we can now add - OSP surveys and a NHS embargo on statistics.
Mr Clark, as a tribute to the work and memory of Hans Rosling, why not go to www.ombudsman-services.org and compare DJS Research's thoroughly independent and highly revealing surveys with what exists now. It is the very least anyone with an open mind and belief in truth and justice could and should do.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Wednesday, 15 February 2017
Ombudsman Services - Vanishing Tansparency, Accountability and Civil Justice. (569)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 569.
569) Ombudsman Services - Vanishing Transparency, Accountability and Civil Justice.
Dear Mr Clark,
The industrial strategy at Ombudsman Services would appear to one of eviscerating any data relating to this company's handling of expensive property complaints.
When DJS Research's contract to produce independent Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services was terminated, information on the company's performance in handling complainants' property disputes went with them.
This would seem to be all that remains:
"Our complaints procedure;
The Independent Assessor will review the service provided by Ombudsman Services but will not consider the ombudsman's decision - this is final. The Independent Assessor does not make judgements about accepting a complaint for investigation, the weight of evidence or the amount of redress recommended."
In other words, the Independent Assessor is a giant rubber stamp.
The weight of the evidence and amount of redress featured prominently in DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports. According to DJS there was a great deal of complainant dissatisfaction with both. That information is no longer made available to complainants.
This is all that's left in Post-Truth UK:
"Operational Board Report:
Property - January 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement 10%.
Property - February 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement 0%.
Property - March 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement 1%.
Property - April 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement 0%.
Property - May 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement ?
Property - June 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement ?
Property - July 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement ?
Property - August 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement ?
Property - September 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement ?
Property - October 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement ?
Property - November 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement ?"
That is the sum total of transparency and accountability made available to complainants seeking private justice from Ombudsman Services in England today.
Q. Mr Clark, we were told by OFT civil servants that even more questions would be asked by those replacing DJS Research - why wasn't that true and why do so many complainants find Ombudsman Services:Property's mutually acceptable settlements, unacceptable?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 569.
569) Ombudsman Services - Vanishing Transparency, Accountability and Civil Justice.
Dear Mr Clark,
The industrial strategy at Ombudsman Services would appear to one of eviscerating any data relating to this company's handling of expensive property complaints.
When DJS Research's contract to produce independent Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services was terminated, information on the company's performance in handling complainants' property disputes went with them.
This would seem to be all that remains:
"Our complaints procedure;
The Independent Assessor will review the service provided by Ombudsman Services but will not consider the ombudsman's decision - this is final. The Independent Assessor does not make judgements about accepting a complaint for investigation, the weight of evidence or the amount of redress recommended."
In other words, the Independent Assessor is a giant rubber stamp.
The weight of the evidence and amount of redress featured prominently in DJS Research's Customer Satisfaction Reports. According to DJS there was a great deal of complainant dissatisfaction with both. That information is no longer made available to complainants.
This is all that's left in Post-Truth UK:
"Operational Board Report:
Property - January 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement 10%.
Property - February 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement 0%.
Property - March 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement 1%.
Property - April 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement 0%.
Property - May 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement ?
Property - June 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement ?
Property - July 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement ?
Property - August 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement ?
Property - September 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement ?
Property - October 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement ?
Property - November 2016 Mutually Acceptable Settlement ?"
That is the sum total of transparency and accountability made available to complainants seeking private justice from Ombudsman Services in England today.
Q. Mr Clark, we were told by OFT civil servants that even more questions would be asked by those replacing DJS Research - why wasn't that true and why do so many complainants find Ombudsman Services:Property's mutually acceptable settlements, unacceptable?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Tuesday, 14 February 2017
Ombudsman Services:Property - ADR With No Transparency And No Accountability. (568)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 568
568) Ombudsman Services:Property - ADR With No Transparency And No Accountability.
(Where ADR is supposed to be Alternative Dispute Resolution).
Dear Mr Clark,
In 2009-10 the Ombudsman Services:Property annual report was eight pages long and there was also a separate Customer Satisfaction Report compiled by DJS Research. There was a degree of transparency and accountability.
In 2009-10 DJS Research concluded that,
"Many (around six in 10) felt the report was completely, or in balance, against the. This did not change even when further representations were made."
(DJS Research Ombudsman Services:Property annual report 2009-10)
By 2016 there was NO Ombudsman Services:Property annual report. The customer journey was complete. Complainants were shunted into a siding and left to be forgotten.
Q. Mr Clark, how does this comply with ADR approval?
The latest Ombudsman Services report states,
"As part of our ADR approval, under schedule 5 of the regulations, we are required to produce an annual activity report. The reports about our energy, communications and consumer ombudsman schemes are listed below."
Q. Mr Clark, why is there no Property report?
The company continue,
"Ombudsman Services annual report.
In accordance with the Ombudsman Association's requirements to be open, transparent and accountable, the annual report has details about our performance, accounts and the complaints we have handled."
Q. Mr Clark, why is there no Property report and how does this comply with the Ombudsman Association's requirement for Ombudsman Services:Property to be open, transparent and accountable?
Is it because this is how the private market in property redress has been rigged so as not to work in the customer's interests but in those of inadequately regulated RICS surveyors?
ADR with no transparency and accountability is not ADR but something quite different.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 568
568) Ombudsman Services:Property - ADR With No Transparency And No Accountability.
(Where ADR is supposed to be Alternative Dispute Resolution).
Dear Mr Clark,
In 2009-10 the Ombudsman Services:Property annual report was eight pages long and there was also a separate Customer Satisfaction Report compiled by DJS Research. There was a degree of transparency and accountability.
In 2009-10 DJS Research concluded that,
"Many (around six in 10) felt the report was completely, or in balance, against the. This did not change even when further representations were made."
(DJS Research Ombudsman Services:Property annual report 2009-10)
By 2016 there was NO Ombudsman Services:Property annual report. The customer journey was complete. Complainants were shunted into a siding and left to be forgotten.
Q. Mr Clark, how does this comply with ADR approval?
The latest Ombudsman Services report states,
"As part of our ADR approval, under schedule 5 of the regulations, we are required to produce an annual activity report. The reports about our energy, communications and consumer ombudsman schemes are listed below."
Q. Mr Clark, why is there no Property report?
The company continue,
"Ombudsman Services annual report.
In accordance with the Ombudsman Association's requirements to be open, transparent and accountable, the annual report has details about our performance, accounts and the complaints we have handled."
Q. Mr Clark, why is there no Property report and how does this comply with the Ombudsman Association's requirement for Ombudsman Services:Property to be open, transparent and accountable?
Is it because this is how the private market in property redress has been rigged so as not to work in the customer's interests but in those of inadequately regulated RICS surveyors?
ADR with no transparency and accountability is not ADR but something quite different.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Friday, 10 February 2017
The National Health Postcode Lottery / A Humanitarian Disaster. (567)
To the Health Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 567.
567) The National Health Postcode Lottery / A Humanitarian Disaster.
Dear Mr Hunt,
Surrey, the Sweetheart Capital of England appears to have done a behind the scenes deal with the Treasury to avoid a referendum on a potential 15% hike in the area's council tax in order to pay for the growing cost of social care..
Plymouth, on the other hand has far few leafy suburbs and well-healed residents. Here the proposed increase in council tax bills to pay for social care is likely to have a far greater impact on its residents than Surrey's. As a consequence Plymouth is likely to see more social dislocation and yet more inequality.
How can this be right in a country which has just taken back control?
Yesterday's Herald told us that the annual bill for Plymouth City Council and CCG was £400 million.
In 2015-16 both South Devon and Torbay CCG and NEW Devon CCG were rated as, "Inadequate" by the regulator Monitor. The inadequate South Devon CCG - without any meaningful consultation - has just announced its intention to close 32 acute care beds and transfer maternity services from Torbay Hospital to Plymouth's Derriford Hospital.
The AA route planner tells expectant Torbay mothers to expect a 52 minute 42.3 mile drive. If that's not a future humanitarian crisis I'm not sure what is. Humanitarian is a word that many Conservatives seem to struggle with.
The Express and Echo's Colleen Smith reported that the Chief Operating Officer, Liz Davenport, was making these decisions due to a £35 million black hole in the budget which was expected to rise to £300 million by 2020.
The Chief Operating Officer believes now is the right time to cut those 32 acute beds.
Mr Hunt, The Vale of York CCG also decided to cut services. Isn't Dr Richard Vautry, Deputy Chair of BMA's GP Committee, right when he says;
"I'm concerned that NHS England has approved these proposals to effectively ration services as a method of cost cutting, but dressing it up on clinical grounds.
There is further evidence of a postcode lottery with care simply being based on an area's ability to fund services, rather than the real clinical need consistently applied across the country."
CCGs are, to all intents and purposes, largely unaccountable to the public. Unless something is done about them they will become the Fragmented Health Service of the future.
When Parkinson's UK made Freedom of Information Act requests to all of England's CCGs in an attempt to discover how NHS funded nursing care were being arrived at, many commissioning groups simply didn't respond.
When I made a Data Protection Act request to Livewell Southwest Ltd not all the information I asked for was provided.
There is no national databank on how CCG's arrive at decisions regarding who should pay for the full cost of nursing care - the state or the individual. Or who within those organisations arrives at those un-collated decisions. Or if some CCGs interpret the National Framework for Continuing Healthcare and NHS Funded Nursing Care more fairly and justly than others.
Plymouth's Livewell Southwest Ltd do not the explain the medical grounds upon which they base their decisions. Anonymous individuals just present the sick, the elderly, the dying and dead - with a bill.
How can that right either?
What chance does the individual have when requesting information on how their loved ones have been treated by anonymous decision makers? None. Unless they employ the services of a solicitor or advocate.
The BMJ tells us - alarmingly - that,
"Our survey showed a wide variation in CCGs' size with CCG population coverage varying from 90.000 to 855.000 and member practices ranging from 10 to 110. In 2013 the Office of National Statistics released CCG population figures based on the national census ranging from 61.600 in Corby to 863.400 in NHS NEW Devon."
(www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/sape/clinical-commissioning-group-population-estimates/mid-2011-census-based)
Perhaps, that in part, helps to explain NHS NEW Devon's "Inadequate" rating. Their accountability to individuals most certainly is.
Importantly, in terms of accountability and democracy, the BMJ reports states,
"The lack of uniformity in CCG structure and the lack of clarity over the meaning of membership raises questions over accountability, which becomes of greater importance as CCGs are taking over responsibility primary care co-commissioning."
Imagine the barons of medieval times jostling for power and prestige and it'll give you some idea of what CCGs are about.
Q. Mr Hunt, when organisations like Livewell Southwest Ltd hand a patient of theirs a one-line decision regarding their entitlement - or lack of it - to NHS funded nursing care is this a way of shifting the cost of care from the state onto the individual and is this not an informal form of income tax?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent campaign is at :www.blogger.com
For Clarity - Attempt 567.
567) The National Health Postcode Lottery / A Humanitarian Disaster.
Dear Mr Hunt,
Surrey, the Sweetheart Capital of England appears to have done a behind the scenes deal with the Treasury to avoid a referendum on a potential 15% hike in the area's council tax in order to pay for the growing cost of social care..
Plymouth, on the other hand has far few leafy suburbs and well-healed residents. Here the proposed increase in council tax bills to pay for social care is likely to have a far greater impact on its residents than Surrey's. As a consequence Plymouth is likely to see more social dislocation and yet more inequality.
How can this be right in a country which has just taken back control?
Yesterday's Herald told us that the annual bill for Plymouth City Council and CCG was £400 million.
In 2015-16 both South Devon and Torbay CCG and NEW Devon CCG were rated as, "Inadequate" by the regulator Monitor. The inadequate South Devon CCG - without any meaningful consultation - has just announced its intention to close 32 acute care beds and transfer maternity services from Torbay Hospital to Plymouth's Derriford Hospital.
The AA route planner tells expectant Torbay mothers to expect a 52 minute 42.3 mile drive. If that's not a future humanitarian crisis I'm not sure what is. Humanitarian is a word that many Conservatives seem to struggle with.
The Express and Echo's Colleen Smith reported that the Chief Operating Officer, Liz Davenport, was making these decisions due to a £35 million black hole in the budget which was expected to rise to £300 million by 2020.
The Chief Operating Officer believes now is the right time to cut those 32 acute beds.
Mr Hunt, The Vale of York CCG also decided to cut services. Isn't Dr Richard Vautry, Deputy Chair of BMA's GP Committee, right when he says;
"I'm concerned that NHS England has approved these proposals to effectively ration services as a method of cost cutting, but dressing it up on clinical grounds.
There is further evidence of a postcode lottery with care simply being based on an area's ability to fund services, rather than the real clinical need consistently applied across the country."
CCGs are, to all intents and purposes, largely unaccountable to the public. Unless something is done about them they will become the Fragmented Health Service of the future.
When Parkinson's UK made Freedom of Information Act requests to all of England's CCGs in an attempt to discover how NHS funded nursing care were being arrived at, many commissioning groups simply didn't respond.
When I made a Data Protection Act request to Livewell Southwest Ltd not all the information I asked for was provided.
There is no national databank on how CCG's arrive at decisions regarding who should pay for the full cost of nursing care - the state or the individual. Or who within those organisations arrives at those un-collated decisions. Or if some CCGs interpret the National Framework for Continuing Healthcare and NHS Funded Nursing Care more fairly and justly than others.
Plymouth's Livewell Southwest Ltd do not the explain the medical grounds upon which they base their decisions. Anonymous individuals just present the sick, the elderly, the dying and dead - with a bill.
How can that right either?
What chance does the individual have when requesting information on how their loved ones have been treated by anonymous decision makers? None. Unless they employ the services of a solicitor or advocate.
The BMJ tells us - alarmingly - that,
"Our survey showed a wide variation in CCGs' size with CCG population coverage varying from 90.000 to 855.000 and member practices ranging from 10 to 110. In 2013 the Office of National Statistics released CCG population figures based on the national census ranging from 61.600 in Corby to 863.400 in NHS NEW Devon."
(www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/sape/clinical-commissioning-group-population-estimates/mid-2011-census-based)
Perhaps, that in part, helps to explain NHS NEW Devon's "Inadequate" rating. Their accountability to individuals most certainly is.
Importantly, in terms of accountability and democracy, the BMJ reports states,
"The lack of uniformity in CCG structure and the lack of clarity over the meaning of membership raises questions over accountability, which becomes of greater importance as CCGs are taking over responsibility primary care co-commissioning."
Imagine the barons of medieval times jostling for power and prestige and it'll give you some idea of what CCGs are about.
Q. Mr Hunt, when organisations like Livewell Southwest Ltd hand a patient of theirs a one-line decision regarding their entitlement - or lack of it - to NHS funded nursing care is this a way of shifting the cost of care from the state onto the individual and is this not an informal form of income tax?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent campaign is at :www.blogger.com
Wednesday, 8 February 2017
The Humanitarian Crisis In The NHS Worsens. (566)
To the Health Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 566.
566) The Humanitarian Crisis In The NHS Worsens.
Dear Mr Hunt,
The AA rout planner tells us that it is a 52 minute 42.3 drive from Torbay Hospital to Plymouth's Derriford Hospital. Possibly quicker if you happen to be a pregnant woman and travelling in an ambulance - should one be available.
That's the frightening and daunting prospect facing Devon's mums-to-be should the planned cuts to 32 acute hospital beds and axing of maternity services drawn up by Torbay Hospital's Chief Operating Officer, Liz Davenport, go ahead.
It seems that the only one who will be left operating at Torbay Hospital in the future will be Liz Davenport should these appalling "austerity" cuts be allowed to happen.
Colleen Smith, reporting for The Express and Echo told us that,
"Due to a £50m black hole it is feared specialist maternity and baby care will be centralised in Plymouth."
And,
"' We now believe the time is right to close 32 acute beds' Ms Davenport confirmed."
Ms Davenport, the time is never right to close 32 acute beds.
Q. Mr Hunt, doesn't Ms Davenport realise that there is a growing and aging population?
Like elsewhere in the NHS, senior operating officers such as Ms Davenport clearly haven't heeded David Davis' dictum to, "trust the people" and so, yet again, hugely important decisions continue to be made behind the scenes.
Colleen Smith quotes Paul Raybould, the Secretary of Torbay Trades Union Council as saying the consultation process surrounding these draconian cuts was, "NHS waffle."
This comes on top of 44 beds cut with the closure of community hospitals in; Paignton, Dartmouth, Bovey Tracey and Ashburton.
Meanwhile, according to Transparency International, the London Property Market continues to be the money laundering capital of choice for the world's despots, dictators and drug barons. There are thousands of such properties registered to off-shore companies - just selling a handful would plug Devon's black hole, send a strong message to those, "helping to break our property market" and help ease the understandable anxieties of pregnant women living miles from Plymouth's Derriford Hospital.
On Tuesday evening BBC's File on 4 was the chilling, "Speaking Up - Whistleblowing in the NHS" The BBC website gives an excellent account of the programme. Anyone who is concerned about the unacceptable culture of bullying, racism, intimidation, doctoring of records and general lying through the teeth that plagues the NHS, should try to listen to it.
The BBC's site says;
"Freedom to Speak Up" was commissioned by the government to create a more open culture within the NHS following the Mid Staffs inquiry which unearthed the poor care and high mortality rates at Staffs Hospital.
The report - which considered evidence from 600 individuals and 43 organisations across the country included chilling accounts of doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals whose lives and careers had been destroyed after trying to raise legitimate concerns about patient safety.
Whistle - blowers said they'd been financially ruined, blacklisted and on the verge of suicide after being branded snitches and troublemakers.
Revealing a culture of secrecy with trusts demonising whistle-blowers instead of welcoming and, investigating their concerns, it was hoped the report would herald a new era of openness and accountability."
Phil, the NUPE Shop Steward at the hospital I once worked in lost his job on the strength of the testimony of an un-named patient who just happened to be looking out of the top floor window at the same time as Phil was returning to work, apparently 10 minutes late.
Sadly, little seems to have changed in 40 years.
If we're to have an Honours List surely the Queen should be awarding whistle-blowers with gongs and not the likes of Sir Philip Green. Perhaps there should be a People's Honours List. Perhaps there should be a National Health Compensation Scheme for whistle-blowers - a scheme into which senior executives are forced to pay each and every time one of their employees stands up, challenges vested interests and attempts to right the wrongs they see going on around them. Wrongs which are left unchallenged by their senior management.
Whilst all this was going on, one of the regions MPs was standing in the Commons and speaking on the subject of seagulls and the threat they posed to the nation's health and security.
Someone should write a play about it.
Q. Mr Hunt, why aren't senior executives financially penalised for their failure to trust the people and comply with their Freedom of Information Act / Data protection Act requests?
Q. Mr Hunt, why aren't senior executives financially penalised for unacceptable delays in responding fully to people's complaints?
Q. Mr Hunt, doesn't Monitor insist on a 7th category when inspecting CCGs' performance - that of transparency and accountability?
Q. Mr Hunt, why is the CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd permitted to have an Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer who hands out single-sentence unsubstantiated decisions which result in colossal bills for nursing care for his patients?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com
For Clarity - Attempt 566.
566) The Humanitarian Crisis In The NHS Worsens.
Dear Mr Hunt,
The AA rout planner tells us that it is a 52 minute 42.3 drive from Torbay Hospital to Plymouth's Derriford Hospital. Possibly quicker if you happen to be a pregnant woman and travelling in an ambulance - should one be available.
That's the frightening and daunting prospect facing Devon's mums-to-be should the planned cuts to 32 acute hospital beds and axing of maternity services drawn up by Torbay Hospital's Chief Operating Officer, Liz Davenport, go ahead.
It seems that the only one who will be left operating at Torbay Hospital in the future will be Liz Davenport should these appalling "austerity" cuts be allowed to happen.
Colleen Smith, reporting for The Express and Echo told us that,
"Due to a £50m black hole it is feared specialist maternity and baby care will be centralised in Plymouth."
And,
"' We now believe the time is right to close 32 acute beds' Ms Davenport confirmed."
Ms Davenport, the time is never right to close 32 acute beds.
Q. Mr Hunt, doesn't Ms Davenport realise that there is a growing and aging population?
Like elsewhere in the NHS, senior operating officers such as Ms Davenport clearly haven't heeded David Davis' dictum to, "trust the people" and so, yet again, hugely important decisions continue to be made behind the scenes.
Colleen Smith quotes Paul Raybould, the Secretary of Torbay Trades Union Council as saying the consultation process surrounding these draconian cuts was, "NHS waffle."
This comes on top of 44 beds cut with the closure of community hospitals in; Paignton, Dartmouth, Bovey Tracey and Ashburton.
Meanwhile, according to Transparency International, the London Property Market continues to be the money laundering capital of choice for the world's despots, dictators and drug barons. There are thousands of such properties registered to off-shore companies - just selling a handful would plug Devon's black hole, send a strong message to those, "helping to break our property market" and help ease the understandable anxieties of pregnant women living miles from Plymouth's Derriford Hospital.
On Tuesday evening BBC's File on 4 was the chilling, "Speaking Up - Whistleblowing in the NHS" The BBC website gives an excellent account of the programme. Anyone who is concerned about the unacceptable culture of bullying, racism, intimidation, doctoring of records and general lying through the teeth that plagues the NHS, should try to listen to it.
The BBC's site says;
"Freedom to Speak Up" was commissioned by the government to create a more open culture within the NHS following the Mid Staffs inquiry which unearthed the poor care and high mortality rates at Staffs Hospital.
The report - which considered evidence from 600 individuals and 43 organisations across the country included chilling accounts of doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals whose lives and careers had been destroyed after trying to raise legitimate concerns about patient safety.
Whistle - blowers said they'd been financially ruined, blacklisted and on the verge of suicide after being branded snitches and troublemakers.
Revealing a culture of secrecy with trusts demonising whistle-blowers instead of welcoming and, investigating their concerns, it was hoped the report would herald a new era of openness and accountability."
Phil, the NUPE Shop Steward at the hospital I once worked in lost his job on the strength of the testimony of an un-named patient who just happened to be looking out of the top floor window at the same time as Phil was returning to work, apparently 10 minutes late.
Sadly, little seems to have changed in 40 years.
If we're to have an Honours List surely the Queen should be awarding whistle-blowers with gongs and not the likes of Sir Philip Green. Perhaps there should be a People's Honours List. Perhaps there should be a National Health Compensation Scheme for whistle-blowers - a scheme into which senior executives are forced to pay each and every time one of their employees stands up, challenges vested interests and attempts to right the wrongs they see going on around them. Wrongs which are left unchallenged by their senior management.
Whilst all this was going on, one of the regions MPs was standing in the Commons and speaking on the subject of seagulls and the threat they posed to the nation's health and security.
Someone should write a play about it.
Q. Mr Hunt, why aren't senior executives financially penalised for their failure to trust the people and comply with their Freedom of Information Act / Data protection Act requests?
Q. Mr Hunt, why aren't senior executives financially penalised for unacceptable delays in responding fully to people's complaints?
Q. Mr Hunt, doesn't Monitor insist on a 7th category when inspecting CCGs' performance - that of transparency and accountability?
Q. Mr Hunt, why is the CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd permitted to have an Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer who hands out single-sentence unsubstantiated decisions which result in colossal bills for nursing care for his patients?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com
Sunday, 5 February 2017
"Do we trust the people or not?" (565)
To the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union:
For Clarity - Attempt 565:
565) "Do we trust the people or not?"
Dear Mr Davis,
You said in the Commons last week,
"The eyes of the nation are on this chamber as we consider this Bill. For many years there's been a creeping sense in the country - and not just this country - that politicians say one thing and do another. We voted to give the people the chance to determine our future at a referendum; now we must honour our side of the agreement - to vote to deliver on the result. So really are we considering the very simple question - do we trust the people or not?" (David Davis: European Union - Notification of Withdrawal - Bill)
Many politicians are highly skilled at saying one thing and doing another. It's what they're good at. CCG executives seem to be catching on fast.
You need look no further than at the Prime Minister's exhortation to, "step up" to, "challenge vested interests" and to, "right wrongs" (all laudable intentions in themselves) only for her then to sheepishly hold Mr Tump's hand whilst being led up the garden path, to know to take what they say with a large pinch of salt.
This would suggest that the simple question politicians should be considering is not - do they trust the people or not - but why do the people still trust quite so many politicians?
Recent research suggests they don't.
According to an Ipsos MORI poll of 20th Jan 2016 politicians remain the profession least trusted by the British public, below estate agents, journalists and bankers. Doctors are the most trusted of professions. However, when the role of CCGs is more fully understood by the British public confidence in them is likely to be seriously undermined.
It is highly convenient for politicians to trust the people when they happen to agree with them - especially at the time of a referendum - but what about the rest of the time?
The people weren't sufficiently trusted to be told there was to be a Health and Social Care Act in the Conservative Party 2010 manifesto - or the privatisation that that would entail.
Under, "Health" the Telegraph reported that the Conservative Party manifesto, "promises managerial reforms to make the service more efficient." Crucially, "NHS staff will be properly accountable to patients." We're told that specific health policies included; "Putting more detailed NHS performance data online" and, "Putting patients in charge of their own records."
(www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elections-2010/7165000/conservative-manifesto)
Q. Mr Davis, if the NHS is to be properly accountable to patients why hasn't Professor Waite, CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd, properly, promptly and fully answered our questions?
Q. Mr Davis, if the NHS is to be properly accountable to patients why does Professor Waite employ an Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer to deliver one-sentence unsubstantiated decisions which saddle his patients with hugely expensive bills for nursing care?
Q. Mr Davis, if putting more detailed NHS performance data online was a Conservative Party manifesto pledge why isn't each and every made by anonymous Livewell Southwest Ltd / NWE Devon CCG functionaries (and panel members) collated and put online?
Q. Mr Davis, if putting patients in charge of their own records was also a manifesto pledge why did I have to pay a Data Protection Act fee to access my late father's records and why was my name on my father's records?
Mr Davis, put your trust in the people and demand that the newly privatised NHS is made accountable. Then the people will see who in the NHS is making the decisions that have such a devastating impact upon their lives, if certain anonymous individuals are more prone to appalling decision making than others and if certain CCGs are more brutally efficient at passing the cost of care from the NHS onto their patients than others.
Clive Peedell, of the NHS Consultants Association found, "evidence that privatisation is an inevitable consequence of many of the policies contained in the health and Social Care Bill."
Q. Mr Davis, why didn't the Conservative Party manifesto trust the people at the time of the 2010 General Election to tell them they intended to further privatise the NHS and to ape America's disastrous healthcare system?
The Telegraph described these so-called reforms as, "The biggest revolution in the NHS since its foundations" yet they were not contained within the Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition agreement of 20th May 2010 either.
Mr Davis, that's two political parties which had little or no trust in the people when it came to their - the people's - NHS.
Stephen Cragg of Doughty Street Chambers speaking for 38 Degrees said,
"Effectively, the duty to provide a national health service would be lost if the Bill became law." And, "CCGs are not open for discussion but are also already too far along the path to completion to be stopped now."
CCGs are not open for discussion.
This is supposed to be a democracy. One where politicians trust the people. Better instead for politicians to rig the market in health, "behind the scenes" and away from the glare of publicity.
Mr Davis isn't it true that we no longer have a national health service just scores of non-transparent unaccountable CCGs who are busily enriching their senior executives whilst rigging the market in healthcare?
Q. Mr Davis, shouldn't CCGs be known from now on as OCS - Organised Crime Syndicates?
CCGs refuse to trust the people. They refuse to comply with the people's Freedom of Information Act requests. They refuse to collect and publish data on their decisions regarding NHS funded nursing care and they refuse to trust the people with answers to their - the people's - questions.
They are the extortion racket at the very heart of the privatisation of the NHS.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 565:
565) "Do we trust the people or not?"
Dear Mr Davis,
You said in the Commons last week,
"The eyes of the nation are on this chamber as we consider this Bill. For many years there's been a creeping sense in the country - and not just this country - that politicians say one thing and do another. We voted to give the people the chance to determine our future at a referendum; now we must honour our side of the agreement - to vote to deliver on the result. So really are we considering the very simple question - do we trust the people or not?" (David Davis: European Union - Notification of Withdrawal - Bill)
Many politicians are highly skilled at saying one thing and doing another. It's what they're good at. CCG executives seem to be catching on fast.
You need look no further than at the Prime Minister's exhortation to, "step up" to, "challenge vested interests" and to, "right wrongs" (all laudable intentions in themselves) only for her then to sheepishly hold Mr Tump's hand whilst being led up the garden path, to know to take what they say with a large pinch of salt.
This would suggest that the simple question politicians should be considering is not - do they trust the people or not - but why do the people still trust quite so many politicians?
Recent research suggests they don't.
According to an Ipsos MORI poll of 20th Jan 2016 politicians remain the profession least trusted by the British public, below estate agents, journalists and bankers. Doctors are the most trusted of professions. However, when the role of CCGs is more fully understood by the British public confidence in them is likely to be seriously undermined.
It is highly convenient for politicians to trust the people when they happen to agree with them - especially at the time of a referendum - but what about the rest of the time?
The people weren't sufficiently trusted to be told there was to be a Health and Social Care Act in the Conservative Party 2010 manifesto - or the privatisation that that would entail.
Under, "Health" the Telegraph reported that the Conservative Party manifesto, "promises managerial reforms to make the service more efficient." Crucially, "NHS staff will be properly accountable to patients." We're told that specific health policies included; "Putting more detailed NHS performance data online" and, "Putting patients in charge of their own records."
(www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elections-2010/7165000/conservative-manifesto)
Q. Mr Davis, if the NHS is to be properly accountable to patients why hasn't Professor Waite, CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd, properly, promptly and fully answered our questions?
Q. Mr Davis, if the NHS is to be properly accountable to patients why does Professor Waite employ an Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer to deliver one-sentence unsubstantiated decisions which saddle his patients with hugely expensive bills for nursing care?
Q. Mr Davis, if putting more detailed NHS performance data online was a Conservative Party manifesto pledge why isn't each and every made by anonymous Livewell Southwest Ltd / NWE Devon CCG functionaries (and panel members) collated and put online?
Q. Mr Davis, if putting patients in charge of their own records was also a manifesto pledge why did I have to pay a Data Protection Act fee to access my late father's records and why was my name on my father's records?
Mr Davis, put your trust in the people and demand that the newly privatised NHS is made accountable. Then the people will see who in the NHS is making the decisions that have such a devastating impact upon their lives, if certain anonymous individuals are more prone to appalling decision making than others and if certain CCGs are more brutally efficient at passing the cost of care from the NHS onto their patients than others.
Clive Peedell, of the NHS Consultants Association found, "evidence that privatisation is an inevitable consequence of many of the policies contained in the health and Social Care Bill."
Q. Mr Davis, why didn't the Conservative Party manifesto trust the people at the time of the 2010 General Election to tell them they intended to further privatise the NHS and to ape America's disastrous healthcare system?
The Telegraph described these so-called reforms as, "The biggest revolution in the NHS since its foundations" yet they were not contained within the Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition agreement of 20th May 2010 either.
Mr Davis, that's two political parties which had little or no trust in the people when it came to their - the people's - NHS.
Stephen Cragg of Doughty Street Chambers speaking for 38 Degrees said,
"Effectively, the duty to provide a national health service would be lost if the Bill became law." And, "CCGs are not open for discussion but are also already too far along the path to completion to be stopped now."
CCGs are not open for discussion.
This is supposed to be a democracy. One where politicians trust the people. Better instead for politicians to rig the market in health, "behind the scenes" and away from the glare of publicity.
Mr Davis isn't it true that we no longer have a national health service just scores of non-transparent unaccountable CCGs who are busily enriching their senior executives whilst rigging the market in healthcare?
Q. Mr Davis, shouldn't CCGs be known from now on as OCS - Organised Crime Syndicates?
CCGs refuse to trust the people. They refuse to comply with the people's Freedom of Information Act requests. They refuse to collect and publish data on their decisions regarding NHS funded nursing care and they refuse to trust the people with answers to their - the people's - questions.
They are the extortion racket at the very heart of the privatisation of the NHS.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)