![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conflictionMy research into privatisation, specifically the Health sector, here in the UK was spurred by a conversation with my mother. It's not too late to get involved or spread the word about what is happening here in Britain and also in the U.S. (although i'm not too clear on what can be done across the pond in terms of lobby groups etc.).
I'm not too sure when this all started, but a few articles seem to outline a rough process of developments. I've tried to lay-out my research in an easy to follow and hopefully informative manner.
In 1997 the US government passed the 'Balanced Budget Act' which "allows doctors to have "private contracts" with Medicare beneficiaries."
Under the guise of giving patients more choice, the Act actually 'forces' "patients [to] become responsible for the full cost of services normally covered by Medicare." (more detail)
I say 'forces', because if you live in a high income area, lets say, many of your local doctors will opt-out of the Medicare program and charge unregulated fees for their services. You'd have to travel unreasonable distances (at extra cost) to find a doctor still under the Medicare program.
I'm aware that Medicare in the US is predominantly for the health care of retired citizens and also for the young. The policies seem to be in line with other policies regarding the 'baby boomer' generation (re: Privatization of Social Security).
In 1999 the American Public Health Association recognized a disconcerting trend of private conractors who were 'dropping' their contracts, thus "dropping coverage of more than 400,000 beneficiaries in 30 states and the District of Columbia"
I've not looked through the congressional library for the related bill, but you can do so here. It would have been passed during the 106th Congress, but may have been as late os the 107th. Still, I'm sure some sort of bill was passed, because just last year Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) was awarded the Medicaid contract for North Carolina. Now the interesting thing about this particular story is how "ACS captured the contract by underbidding its Texas rival, Electronic Data Systems, by $81 million." In other words, reverse-bidding. The cheapest company wins the contract and sets the profit benchmark. If the company spends more than $171 million over 5 years, it won't make a cent in profit. ACS must therefore, necessarily, provide low-cost and cut-cost services.
As an aside, it's also interesting to note that the companies are computer related. Further contractors i came across, for those interested, are Wellpoint, ViPS, NAS and Blue Cross.
This 6+ minute soundbite from The Tavis Smiley Show, November 7, 2003 is interesting, particularly the last 2 minutes. Again, for those interested. (RealPlayer or WindowsMediaPlayer only).
Coming back across the water, to my home country, it's interesting to see the developments here in relation to what i have described above.
According to this story in The Guardian newspaper, it wasn't until April 2002 that privatizing Britains Health sector was pushed for by, well, the private sector. There are already parts of our health sector which are privatized, and there may well have been lobby attempts in the past, but this article seems to suggest that there was renewed pressure to allow private bodies more access in running public services.
The article mentions PFI schemes and the trade union Unison. Ironic, considering I found this on the Unison website. (Entitled "The Private Finance Initiative - a briefing")
Now i jump to BBC News, Thursday 29 September 2005, nearly a year and a half later and, fortunately, the government is "defeated in a vote on its plans to expand the use of private firms in the NHS."
Roughly one month later, Nurses take legal action against Ministers who "are planning a shake-up in local health bodies in 2008 which could allow private firms to provide services such as district nursing and chiropody."
Nearly 2 weeks pass before another article appears, this time quite detailed and even more telling. It it even has one of the funniest typo's i've ever come across... "And at best the pubic remain ambivalent to the change." Although i would say it would be more accurate to say that the public remain laregly unaddressed and uninformed.
Then on January 10th 2006, Amicus, a manufacturing union, lobbied Parliament to stop break-up of NHS.
After all of the opposition to the idea, the government is going to push through a White Paper revealing a shift in NHS funding.
What is it the government actually plans to do? Well, under the public campaign name 'Our health, our care, our say' (well, that's the government accounted for, but what about 'our' say?), they ran a series of consultations and listening events around the country. This site outlines some sketchy proposals using buzz words like "give service users more independence, choice and control." The full White Paper can be downloaded from this website as well.
It's time i wrapped this up.
American private firm 'United Health Group', through it's subsidiary 'UnitedHealth Europe', "ahead of 17 other bidders", won a contract to provide Primary Health Care in Derbyshire, UK. It's interesting to note the reference to a previous contract closure, which cannot be disclosed for legal reason.
This academic essay outlines some of the differences, similarities and benefits in a comparison of the US and UK Health care systems. It concludes that "Given the uncertainty of which member one might be in a given society, the lack of equality and high risk of having to be uninsured made us choose the NHS system, even though for many specific treatments and income brackets the US seems to fair better." So we have to bare in mind that private companies are 'economically' efficient... which is very different from being performance or even socially efficient.
In the end, it really does seem to me that, if you're rich, we'll look after you. Mostly because we can make money from rich people, and poor people are nothing but an expense. Well, we'll see how much of an expense we are when we all file for our 2 weeks paid sick leave... all at once. Now there's an idea!
If anyone reading this is British, please tell anyone interested to join Amicus or Unison and try to get them involved in stopping the privatization of Britains Health Sector!
(Not to mention Britains trains, the London Underground, our schools... where does it end?)
You may remember me mentioning computers. Well, already underway in Britain is a central database system called CRS.
I'm not too sure when this all started, but a few articles seem to outline a rough process of developments. I've tried to lay-out my research in an easy to follow and hopefully informative manner.
In 1997 the US government passed the 'Balanced Budget Act' which "allows doctors to have "private contracts" with Medicare beneficiaries."
Under the guise of giving patients more choice, the Act actually 'forces' "patients [to] become responsible for the full cost of services normally covered by Medicare." (more detail)
I say 'forces', because if you live in a high income area, lets say, many of your local doctors will opt-out of the Medicare program and charge unregulated fees for their services. You'd have to travel unreasonable distances (at extra cost) to find a doctor still under the Medicare program.
I'm aware that Medicare in the US is predominantly for the health care of retired citizens and also for the young. The policies seem to be in line with other policies regarding the 'baby boomer' generation (re: Privatization of Social Security).
In 1999 the American Public Health Association recognized a disconcerting trend of private conractors who were 'dropping' their contracts, thus "dropping coverage of more than 400,000 beneficiaries in 30 states and the District of Columbia"
I've not looked through the congressional library for the related bill, but you can do so here. It would have been passed during the 106th Congress, but may have been as late os the 107th. Still, I'm sure some sort of bill was passed, because just last year Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) was awarded the Medicaid contract for North Carolina. Now the interesting thing about this particular story is how "ACS captured the contract by underbidding its Texas rival, Electronic Data Systems, by $81 million." In other words, reverse-bidding. The cheapest company wins the contract and sets the profit benchmark. If the company spends more than $171 million over 5 years, it won't make a cent in profit. ACS must therefore, necessarily, provide low-cost and cut-cost services.
As an aside, it's also interesting to note that the companies are computer related. Further contractors i came across, for those interested, are Wellpoint, ViPS, NAS and Blue Cross.
This 6+ minute soundbite from The Tavis Smiley Show, November 7, 2003 is interesting, particularly the last 2 minutes. Again, for those interested. (RealPlayer or WindowsMediaPlayer only).
Coming back across the water, to my home country, it's interesting to see the developments here in relation to what i have described above.
According to this story in The Guardian newspaper, it wasn't until April 2002 that privatizing Britains Health sector was pushed for by, well, the private sector. There are already parts of our health sector which are privatized, and there may well have been lobby attempts in the past, but this article seems to suggest that there was renewed pressure to allow private bodies more access in running public services.
The article mentions PFI schemes and the trade union Unison. Ironic, considering I found this on the Unison website. (Entitled "The Private Finance Initiative - a briefing")
Now i jump to BBC News, Thursday 29 September 2005, nearly a year and a half later and, fortunately, the government is "defeated in a vote on its plans to expand the use of private firms in the NHS."
Roughly one month later, Nurses take legal action against Ministers who "are planning a shake-up in local health bodies in 2008 which could allow private firms to provide services such as district nursing and chiropody."
Nearly 2 weeks pass before another article appears, this time quite detailed and even more telling. It it even has one of the funniest typo's i've ever come across... "And at best the pubic remain ambivalent to the change." Although i would say it would be more accurate to say that the public remain laregly unaddressed and uninformed.
Then on January 10th 2006, Amicus, a manufacturing union, lobbied Parliament to stop break-up of NHS.
After all of the opposition to the idea, the government is going to push through a White Paper revealing a shift in NHS funding.
What is it the government actually plans to do? Well, under the public campaign name 'Our health, our care, our say' (well, that's the government accounted for, but what about 'our' say?), they ran a series of consultations and listening events around the country. This site outlines some sketchy proposals using buzz words like "give service users more independence, choice and control." The full White Paper can be downloaded from this website as well.
It's time i wrapped this up.
American private firm 'United Health Group', through it's subsidiary 'UnitedHealth Europe', "ahead of 17 other bidders", won a contract to provide Primary Health Care in Derbyshire, UK. It's interesting to note the reference to a previous contract closure, which cannot be disclosed for legal reason.
This academic essay outlines some of the differences, similarities and benefits in a comparison of the US and UK Health care systems. It concludes that "Given the uncertainty of which member one might be in a given society, the lack of equality and high risk of having to be uninsured made us choose the NHS system, even though for many specific treatments and income brackets the US seems to fair better." So we have to bare in mind that private companies are 'economically' efficient... which is very different from being performance or even socially efficient.
In the end, it really does seem to me that, if you're rich, we'll look after you. Mostly because we can make money from rich people, and poor people are nothing but an expense. Well, we'll see how much of an expense we are when we all file for our 2 weeks paid sick leave... all at once. Now there's an idea!
If anyone reading this is British, please tell anyone interested to join Amicus or Unison and try to get them involved in stopping the privatization of Britains Health Sector!
(Not to mention Britains trains, the London Underground, our schools... where does it end?)
You may remember me mentioning computers. Well, already underway in Britain is a central database system called CRS.