Field said he had decided not to address the cap because of mixed feedback from hospitals – at University Hospital Birmingham the cap is set at 1% while the Royal Marsden in London's cap is set at about 30%.
"So University Hospital Birmingham couldn't bring money in which would actually help its NHS services," Field said as he pointed out that lifting the cap would leave hospitals more vulnerable to competition law. "On the other hand, if you opened the cap it may be more likely to be under … EU law, and from competition and from Monitor. So when we weighed up the proposals and the problems that might arise we chose not to go into any great detail."
John Healey, Labour's shadow health secretary, said: "Steve Field is right and this was a serious omission from the Future Forum report. Removing the private patients' cap is a vital feature of the government's plans to turn the health service into a full-scale market, which will see NHS patients waiting longer and open up hospitals to greater challenge under competition law."
Sue Slipman, the director of the Foundation Trust Network, said it was right to lift the cap. Slipman told MPs: "Depending upon the range of patient choices, it isn't necessarily the case that there would be fewer NHS patients if you expand the facilities as a result of the money you can [raise]. It depends where you invest that money.
"The term 'private patient cap' is a misnomer. This is all money that can be brought into the system as a result of any service which may derive from private patients. So, for example, if you run laundry in your hospital and any of that laundry is used by those who supply services to private patients, this counts against the cap. We believe that the lifting of the private patient cap would enable public providers to being more money into the NHS to benefit NHS patients."
The BMA membership rejected leader Dr Hamish Meldrum's attempts to reassure them that key elements of the bill should not damage the NHS.
Their motion said there was still anxiety about:
• The role of the NHS regulator Monitor. They fear it will still promote competition between hospitals, even though Meldrum insisted that "competition has gone" as Monitor's main duty as a result of changes following the NHS Future Forum.
Field said he had decided not to address the cap because of mixed feedback from hospitals – at University Hospital Birmingham the cap is set at 1% while the Royal Marsden in London's cap is set at about 30%.
"So University Hospital Birmingham couldn't bring money in which would actually help its NHS services," Field said as he pointed out that lifting the cap would leave hospitals more vulnerable to competition law. "On the other hand, if you opened the cap it may be more likely to be under … EU law, and from competition and from Monitor. So when we weighed up the proposals and the problems that might arise we chose not to go into any great detail."
John Healey, Labour's shadow health secretary, said: "Steve Field is right and this was a serious omission from the Future Forum report. Removing the private patients' cap is a vital feature of the government's plans to turn the health service into a full-scale market, which will see NHS patients waiting longer and open up hospitals to greater challenge under competition law."
Sue Slipman, the director of the Foundation Trust Network, said it was right to lift the cap. Slipman told MPs: "Depending upon the range of patient choices, it isn't necessarily the case that there would be fewer NHS patients if you expand the facilities as a result of the money you can [raise]. It depends where you invest that money.
"The term 'private patient cap' is a misnomer. This is all money that can be brought into the system as a result of any service which may derive from private patients. So, for example, if you run laundry in your hospital and any of that laundry is used by those who supply services to private patients, this counts against the cap. We believe that the lifting of the private patient cap would enable public providers to being more money into the NHS to benefit NHS patients."
The BMA membership rejected leader Dr Hamish Meldrum's attempts to reassure them that key elements of the bill should not damage the NHS.
Their motion said there was still anxiety about:
• The role of the NHS regulator Monitor. They fear it will still promote competition between hospitals, even though Meldrum insisted that "competition has gone" as Monitor's main duty as a result of changes following the NHS Future Forum.
Field said he had decided not to address the cap because of mixed feedback from hospitals – at University Hospital Birmingham the cap is set at 1% while the Royal Marsden in London's cap is set at about 30%.
"So University Hospital Birmingham couldn't bring money in which would actually help its NHS services," Field said as he pointed out that lifting the cap would leave hospitals more vulnerable to competition law. "On the other hand, if you opened the cap it may be more likely to be under … EU law, and from competition and from Monitor. So when we weighed up the proposals and the problems that might arise we chose not to go into any great detail."
John Healey, Labour's shadow health secretary, said: "Steve Field is right and this was a serious omission from the Future Forum report. Removing the private patients' cap is a vital feature of the government's plans to turn the health service into a full-scale market, which will see NHS patients waiting longer and open up hospitals to greater challenge under competition law."
Sue Slipman, the director of the Foundation Trust Network, said it was right to lift the cap. Slipman told MPs: "Depending upon the range of patient choices, it isn't necessarily the case that there would be fewer NHS patients if you expand the facilities as a result of the money you can [raise]. It depends where you invest that money.
"The term 'private patient cap' is a misnomer. This is all money that can be brought into the system as a result of any service which may derive from private patients. So, for example, if you run laundry in your hospital and any of that laundry is used by those who supply services to private patients, this counts against the cap. We believe that the lifting of the private patient cap would enable public providers to being more money into the NHS to benefit NHS patients."
The BMA membership rejected leader Dr Hamish Meldrum's attempts to reassure them that key elements of the bill should not damage the NHS.
Their motion said there was still anxiety about:
• The role of the NHS regulator Monitor. They fear it will still promote competition between hospitals, even though Meldrum insisted that "competition has gone" as Monitor's main duty as a result of changes following the NHS Future Forum.
Field said he had decided not to address the cap because of mixed feedback from hospitals – at University Hospital Birmingham the cap is set at 1% while the Royal Marsden in London's cap is set at about 30%.
"So University Hospital Birmingham couldn't bring money in which would actually help its NHS services," Field said as he pointed out that lifting the cap would leave hospitals more vulnerable to competition law. "On the other hand, if you opened the cap it may be more likely to be under … EU law, and from competition and from Monitor. So when we weighed up the proposals and the problems that might arise we chose not to go into any great detail."
John Healey, Labour's shadow health secretary, said: "Steve Field is right and this was a serious omission from the Future Forum report. Removing the private patients' cap is a vital feature of the government's plans to turn the health service into a full-scale market, which will see NHS patients waiting longer and open up hospitals to greater challenge under competition law."
Sue Slipman, the director of the Foundation Trust Network, said it was right to lift the cap. Slipman told MPs: "Depending upon the range of patient choices, it isn't necessarily the case that there would be fewer NHS patients if you expand the facilities as a result of the money you can [raise]. It depends where you invest that money.
"The term 'private patient cap' is a misnomer. This is all money that can be brought into the system as a result of any service which may derive from private patients. So, for example, if you run laundry in your hospital and any of that laundry is used by those who supply services to private patients, this counts against the cap. We believe that the lifting of the private patient cap would enable public providers to being more money into the NHS to benefit NHS patients."
The BMA membership rejected leader Dr Hamish Meldrum's attempts to reassure them that key elements of the bill should not damage the NHS.
Their motion said there was still anxiety about:
• The role of the NHS regulator Monitor. They fear it will still promote competition between hospitals, even though Meldrum insisted that "competition has gone" as Monitor's main duty as a result of changes following the NHS Future Forum.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/28/nhs-private-patients-doubts
No comments:
Post a Comment