Hahahahaha, but,
http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/finance/serco-to-withdraw-from-uk-clinical-services-market/5073892.article#
(Not that I've got access but a blog helpfully copied some of it over)
Outsourcing giant Serco has announced plans to withdraw from the clinical health services market in the UK after making a multimillion pound loss on its NHS contracts. The move follows a review of the cost of delivering “improved service levels” and meeting the performance requirements of several existing contracts, the company said in a stock market statement.
“During the period, the group continued to monitor performance in the UK clinical health operations against which an onerous contract provision was made in the prior year and where the group’s intention is to withdraw from the UK clinical health market,” it said. “The group has revised upwards the estimate of the costs of running the contracts to term, resulting in an additional non-cash exceptional charge of £3.9m in the period (year ended 31 December 2013: £17.6m).”
Serco’s planned withdrawal could influence significantly how other private firms view the prospect of bidding for contracts involving patient facing services. It also follows months of speculation about the outsourcing giant’s clinical operation.
Translates as "The work is too hard, we didn't persuade/ bribe them to give us enough money to do it, so we're going to have to run away with our tails between our legs."
I've been of the opinion for years and years now that privatising the NHS is a bad idea, for many reasons. As Serco is finding out, it's rather hard work to make it work. Not only do the poor dears have to get by on as little or less than public sector workers, they also have to try and make a profit on top. The quicker they all bugger off and leave the NHS alone the better.
Public services cover areas of what we normally expect in such a civilised country as ours, to be always around and open for when they are needed. Unfortunately when you privatise them they become more expensive, less flexible and not open for need. And then when they collapse, as private companies sometimes do in markets because, duuhhhh, that's how markets work, tough for the poor sods who need the services.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/what-do-we-do-when-the-public-services-market-fails/
The collapse of Southern Cross care homes in 2011 - a large provider responsible for 31,000 older people mostly concentrated in one part of the country - brought the issue into stark relief. It quickly became clear that neither the local authorities nor the key national agencies had any contingency plans; indeed nobody even had any formal powers to compel action. Not the least of the problems here was the remote ownership of the company - the interests of offshore private companies had come face-to-face with the need for service continuity for highly vulnerable people in a new and politically explosive manner.
A sensible person will then point out that if you've got to prepare proper plans and contingencies for private companies going bust or running away, then that'll cost millions on top of the cost of the privatisation. Which makes you wonder how it is worth it in the first place...
We all know the answer to that one, don't we?
I rather like this point of view:
But perhaps the most vital health and care debate is about what the popular philosopher Michael Sandel has termed the ‘moral limits’ of markets. In this context public services like health and social care are viewed as the manifestation of communal solidarity, expressing a sense of moral obligation that citizens feel for each other. They are something more than a contract put out to the market to secure ‘value for money’. The state is the vehicle for negotiating these obligations with citizens, for developing strategic thinking, coordinating inputs and serving as the ultimate source of legitimacy. This is the debate we need to be having, rising above dry and technical consultations on ‘service continuity’ and ‘commissioner requested services’ to think about what sort of society we want to live in.
But such thinking is anathema to the market worshippers currently dismantling this country.
(Not that I've got access but a blog helpfully copied some of it over)
Outsourcing giant Serco has announced plans to withdraw from the clinical health services market in the UK after making a multimillion pound loss on its NHS contracts. The move follows a review of the cost of delivering “improved service levels” and meeting the performance requirements of several existing contracts, the company said in a stock market statement.
“During the period, the group continued to monitor performance in the UK clinical health operations against which an onerous contract provision was made in the prior year and where the group’s intention is to withdraw from the UK clinical health market,” it said. “The group has revised upwards the estimate of the costs of running the contracts to term, resulting in an additional non-cash exceptional charge of £3.9m in the period (year ended 31 December 2013: £17.6m).”
Serco’s planned withdrawal could influence significantly how other private firms view the prospect of bidding for contracts involving patient facing services. It also follows months of speculation about the outsourcing giant’s clinical operation.
Translates as "The work is too hard, we didn't persuade/ bribe them to give us enough money to do it, so we're going to have to run away with our tails between our legs."
I've been of the opinion for years and years now that privatising the NHS is a bad idea, for many reasons. As Serco is finding out, it's rather hard work to make it work. Not only do the poor dears have to get by on as little or less than public sector workers, they also have to try and make a profit on top. The quicker they all bugger off and leave the NHS alone the better.
Public services cover areas of what we normally expect in such a civilised country as ours, to be always around and open for when they are needed. Unfortunately when you privatise them they become more expensive, less flexible and not open for need. And then when they collapse, as private companies sometimes do in markets because, duuhhhh, that's how markets work, tough for the poor sods who need the services.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/what-do-we-do-when-the-public-services-market-fails/
The collapse of Southern Cross care homes in 2011 - a large provider responsible for 31,000 older people mostly concentrated in one part of the country - brought the issue into stark relief. It quickly became clear that neither the local authorities nor the key national agencies had any contingency plans; indeed nobody even had any formal powers to compel action. Not the least of the problems here was the remote ownership of the company - the interests of offshore private companies had come face-to-face with the need for service continuity for highly vulnerable people in a new and politically explosive manner.
A sensible person will then point out that if you've got to prepare proper plans and contingencies for private companies going bust or running away, then that'll cost millions on top of the cost of the privatisation. Which makes you wonder how it is worth it in the first place...
We all know the answer to that one, don't we?
I rather like this point of view:
But perhaps the most vital health and care debate is about what the popular philosopher Michael Sandel has termed the ‘moral limits’ of markets. In this context public services like health and social care are viewed as the manifestation of communal solidarity, expressing a sense of moral obligation that citizens feel for each other. They are something more than a contract put out to the market to secure ‘value for money’. The state is the vehicle for negotiating these obligations with citizens, for developing strategic thinking, coordinating inputs and serving as the ultimate source of legitimacy. This is the debate we need to be having, rising above dry and technical consultations on ‘service continuity’ and ‘commissioner requested services’ to think about what sort of society we want to live in.
But such thinking is anathema to the market worshippers currently dismantling this country.