Morning:
9°c
US firm takes control of three GP surgeries
Amy Iggulden, Health Correspondent29.01.08
A private American health firm has won control of three GP surgeries in London.
The deal with United Health Europe opens the way to the privatisation of family doctors' practices. It comes after a government push to put primary care into corporate hands.
Doctors have warned that patients could suffer as conglomerates offer "cut-price deals" to win contracts. Health trusts are already under pressure to keep costs down after two years of tackling debt.
The contract for United Health Europe is its first with a London health trust. It gives the group, the largest healthcare corporation in the US, control of the Brunswick Medical Centre, King's Cross Road Practice and Camden Road Practice, Camden.
Doctors claim that it will mean the end of traditional practice and " personalised" care. But private firms argue they will open longer and offer more health checks than traditional surgeries.
Dr Richard Halvorsen, who lost out on the contract to United Health, said he was offering to spend £100 per patient while it was spending £75.
He said: "This is another example of a cut-price privatised service being imposed on patients against their will. I fear that patients will suffer as a result." He added that patients will be disrupted by an influx of new doctors and will have to become accustomed to new systems.
Under plans unveiled by health minister Lord Darzi, more private companies will be given contracts to run NHS surgeries. They are being invited to bid for 100 new GP practices and 150 health centres nationwide.
Lord Darzi is also meeting companies including Tesco and Boots to consider how they can extend access to family doctors.
The British Medical Association is campaigning against the move and issued a warning to patients that firms are out "to make a fast buck".
But the deal to bring United Health into the heart of London GP care will be more contentious as it involves an existing surgery. United Health already runs one GP practice in Normanton, Derbyshire. It argues that it has increased the practice's performance score from 81 per cent to 94 per cent and offered new tests.
Camden health trust chief executive Rob Larkman said the firm would provide "excellent services". "This has been a very rigorous process," he said.
A trust spokesman added: "All GP practices are private because all GPs are contracted. If they are spending more money on patients it costs more for the primary care trust."
But doctors who lost out on the contract are also accusing the trust of running an unfair selection process.
claim the value for money test was added at the last minute. A spokesman for the Camden GP committee said: "With United Health allocating substantially less money per patient there are fears that patients will suffer a reduction in the quality of care they receive." However Dr Pete Smith, director of primary care for United Health, said: "We are committed to providing the highest quality family doctor services. We already provide this elsewhere in the UK, where we have increased the range of services available to patients and extended opening hours from 8am to 8pm. These services have proved really popular."
Reader views (13)
Decisions made by successive Government have led to this situation where we see Our GP surgeries being sold off to US companies. Where will it end? This seems to be one more step towards privatisation and away from the NHS being a universal service.
This move will change the patient-doctor relationship and raises questions over accountability. It leaves you wondering what is more important to these firms - patients or profits?
- Jean Lambert Mep, Green, London
This is the new face of the NHS. Strangely being visited upon the one bit of the NHS that works tolerably well.
- Mark Oliver, Stafford
A software company is taking over the running of a GP practice in Tower Hamlets. No experience of running a UK practice. Local people will be guinea pigs just for profit. Again successful local GP practices applied to run this practice and were turned down. Clearly a political/financial agenda going on here.
Please can someone explain to me why the government thinks it is acceptable for shareholders to make money out of patient's ill health when that money being paid to shareholders should be ploughed back into the health service?
- Bp, London
Once again franchising has hit the headlines in the furore surrounding the takeover of three London GP surgeries by a private US health firm. Doctors have warned that patients could suffer as conglomerates offer "Cut price deals to win contracts." Yet I wonder how many people realise what a great success this kind of franchising actually is in the UK? Or indeed, how many people can truthfully admit that they understand exactly what this deal will involve.
There are approximately 781 businesses in the UK that grow branch networks through operating more than 33,900 franchised outlets. These outlets are managed by carefully selected and fully trained independent operators, who employ 371,600 people and generate total sales in excess of £10.8 billion. Failures amongst franchisees are minimal and significantly lower than those suffered by businesses started independently by untrained individuals.
If the proposed plans have been based upon a successfully established pilot scheme, which franchisors can develop and the public benefit from, then why dismiss the idea at the first hurdle? If, however, these initial and crucial measures have not been taken and a successful franchise system cannot be guaranteed, then the word franchise should certainly not be used to describe the process and appropriate steps must be taken to re-evaluate the situation.
- Brian Duckett, London
As long as we don't have to pay NHS Contributions as well as pay for the doctor. Paying twice is ridiculous.
- Charlie, London
Whilst I have nothing but praise for my own GP and his surgery, my DR saved my life 6 years ago, I would willingly pay to see someone at my convenience if the service was available. At the moment holiday leave has to be taken so that I can fit into the busy practice timetable if needs be, ie just for a simple BP check and renewal of prescription. Why does it matter what the nationality of the doctor is anyway as long as he is there to help, if you have not got your health you have nothing and what has this article got to do with Thames Water, Hl from London is certainly up the creek without his paddle.
- Monica, Portsmouth
I'm not too keen on Americans taking over our NHS either - but I thought all the bidders have to provide exactly the same services. So if one bidder wants £100 and another wants £75 . . to offer the same service . . well, buying the cheaper service certainly seems a good idea to me!
Then the leftover money can be used for other things. Which must be good!
- Cm, London
If I'd wanted to live in America I would.
I think if we are going to sell everything but everything in this country off(Thames Water is Australian for example; state education becoming privatised and run by Americans etc) then make it a true free market and stop charging me income tax.
Why should I pay for venture capitalists and the like, who have no interest in the future well-being of this country, to profit for it?
'To hell in a handcart' doesn't even start to describe it. Come on guys! We used to be revolutionaries, we kicked out the monarchy in the 1600s - let's revolt! Stop Brown, Blair, Cameron from selling us off!
- Hl, London
To R M, London; Wanna bet?
- Ron, Guildford UK
Emigrate to Cuba? Shouldn't that read emigrate to Bupa?
- Nigel, London
Welcome to the new NHS. You can now see an underqualified health care assistant at any time of day or night, for a useless opinion.
- Graham Doll, Dorking
This time we've got to get behind the BMA. "Americans take over GP surgeries" makes such an arresting street hoarding because - for all the NHS's flaws - we still regard what the US has done to its healthcare market with abject horror. Could this be because it's one where, although it needs to be well managed, should not be treated as a "market"? It seems to me that those pointlessly intrusive ID cards - containing medical information which can be cross-referenced against other personal information - that the government also wants to foist upon us against our wills, are intended to facilitate matters for these money-grubbing companies.
I never thought I'd be asking this, but does this sort of development make anyone else feel like emigrating to Cuba?
- Karli, Tottenham, London
It's worth a try to see what they can accomplish. They can't do worse than what we have now.
- R M, London, UK
