It is also extraordinary because it gives an insight into the "corporate thinking" of light620) NHS And RICS Light Touch Regulation: Good For Business - Bad For The Sick, The Elderly And The Dying - And For Consumers.For Clarity - Attempt 620620) Light Touch Regulation at the RICS and NHS: "Good For Their Businesses" "Bad For Their Victims."
Jeremy Corbyn For Prime Minister:
Dear Mr Clark, Mr Hunt, Lord Tim Clement Jones and Professor Waite,
Health "reform," according to one of David Cameron's close advisers, was a chance to make Big Profits.
For Tory privatisers like yourself, Mr Hunt, this wasn't seen as a chance to make big improvements in the health and care of the nation. The motivation for "reform" or more accurately, privatisation, were the Big Profits to be made and the savings the NHS could also make in their wake. People's health and well-being were merely incidental.
Big Profits, for Tories always come before people and the time to make those profits was to be, "in the next couple of years."(Spinwatch 9 May 2011 "The NHS will be shown no mercy says Cameron health advisor.")
"Big Profits" seem to always be accompanied by, "Little Regulation." To oversee this turning of the NHS into the wild west it has two regulators; Monitor and the CQC.
Both organisations have highly paid executives with equally lavish pension pots awaiting them but who would seem to do very little by way of regulation. Light touch regulation appears to be good for profits and good for saving the NHS money but catastrophic for the sick, the elderly and the dying.
David Bennett, one time chair of Monitor talked of, "exposing them to economic regulation" and raised the prospect of Tesco-style hospital chains. However, in 2014 Monitor he was criticised by the Public Accounts Committee which said,"It is wholly inappropriate that the same person acted as both chair and chief executive of Monitor between March 2011 and January 2014. This was contrary to corporate governance good practice and Monitor's own guidance to NHS foundation trusts."
This is extraordinary for two reasons. It is extraordinary that as Health Secretary you allowed it to happen, Mr Hunt.Q. Mr Hunt, was this example of abysmal governance permitted to happen because it coincided with the time - according to Mr Britnell, Mr Cameron's health adviser - when the Big Profits were to be made?
touch regulators who for years were able to ignore their own guidance with impunity.
Seconding the Public Accounts Committee's criticisms of Monitor we see, "NHS regulator is ineffective and has conflicts of interests, says MPs." (search.proquest.co.uk/openview)
At the same time as regulators like Mr Bennett ignored their own rules in pursuit of the economic indiscipline of markets, others were left to suffer as a consequence.
The other so-called regulator - the CQC - has also been widely criticised for its woeful performance.
"Continuing Healthcare funding decisions made without the decision makers"The story of Richard and his wife is sadly familiar, as it no will no doubt be to thousands of others facing similar difficult times.We're told,"But at the following review the assessor told Richard that his wife, 'no longer qualified' for NHS funding. However, the assessor had made up his mind about this before an NHS decision-making panel had ever met. It was a clear attempt to remove funding for the purpose of protecting NHS budgets, yet without going through the proper process. Richard's wife had terminal cancer at the time, and yet the NHS assessor effectively said she was not their responsibility."Q. Professor Waite, the meeting I attended lasted for more than three hours and the person conducting it twice wanted to stop it in order to get advice as she felt unqualified to answer my questions. Yet at the end she was able to state that my father did not qualify for NHS funded nursing care. Was this not also an example of an assessor already making up their mind - with the social worker's tacit agreement - before the meeting had already begun. And was she protecting NHS budgets when doing so?
These scandals would appear to continue as standard practice in the NHS because there is no effective regulation.
We're also told that, "Cynthia Bower and Jill Finney presided over a,"Closed, bullying culture at the Care Quality Commission in which, 'criticism was not tolerated'...Dr Wood said of the CQC under Ms Bower's leadership - 'It was a culture in which anyone who tried to question or challenge, no matter how constructively, was slapped down and warned by their manager that they weren't being, 'corporate.'"Being a "corporate bully" seems to be part of the job description for senior posts in the NHS these days and reflects the mind set of those in search of the Big Profits and Big savings.
Professor John Aston, joint director of public health for Cumbria said,"The problems at CQC reflected a wider malaise within the health service. 'The leadership of these organisations is preoccupied with the reputation of the organisation and isn't focused on public good and public benefit.'"Labour MPs, notably Jo Stevens, Cardiff Central, and Adrian Bailey, West Bromwich, have recently raised the regulatory failings of the RICS and its pursuit of profit over that of the public good on the floor of the House of Commons.
What they say could equally apply to the two NHS regulators.
Q. Lord Tim Clement Jones, is Ombudsman Services:Property not also preoccupied with its reputation and is this why independent Customer Satisfaction Reports are no longer conducted because they were so critical of the company's appalling performance - a performance which saw so-called, "financial awards" plummet from £1.511.76p in 2009 50 50 quid in 2016?
Q. Mr Clark, is it not true that the Conservative Party's obsession with light touch regulation really is, "Good For Business" but "Totally Disastrous For Its Victims?Yours sincerely,Steve Gilbert - Workstock number - 510458.The Ombudmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogspot.com and Facebook: Stephen Gilbert, Plymouth - The Ombudsmans 61% Campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment