Showing posts with label Vanguard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vanguard. Show all posts

Saturday, October 3, 2015

David Cameron & Simon Stevens: TannhÀuser & Vanguard!




The thing that hath been,
it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done:
and there is no new thing under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9

This summer’s entertainment has been that of the alleged ritualistic sexual activity of some well known politician.

Why should so much media time be wasted on such matter or was it a deliberate distraction from something more important?

No it was not even about the Junior doctor’s contract but more of that later as TannhĂ€user is opening at the Met in just a few days time.

TannhÀuser in the kingdom of the goddess Venus, by Henri Fantin-Latour. Photograph: akg-images

The sexual exploits of the elite Parisians were no different to that of modern day politicians:

Wagner's decision to place the obligatory ballet in the opening scene also offended the influential Jockey Club, whose members were in the habit of arriving at the interval to see their mistresses dance before going backstage for sex. By the third night, dog whistles could be bought in the streets outside the Opéra for the express purpose of interrupting the performance.


But what is most important is the new NHS Vanguard:

Without new legislation or public debate a new NHS is happening or so we thought. The Cockroach Catcher wrote on September 7 2015:

Simon Stevens spent some years in the US. Is Vanguard a re-working of Kaiser Permanente?


I have always admired Simon Stevens and his ability to quickly picked some of the best loved people in the NHS to promote Vanguard. The like of which has not been seen in any State run change since Bevan. But Vanguard is going to mean a good deal more than we were led to believe. I suspect that the people working for him are either not aware or they were told not to divulge it. Like Steve Jobs, the smartest people keep their main aim to themselves. He has picked the people that were very savvy with Social Media and that part of the NHS is exploding with little reference to the plight of Junior Doctors or the bribery of GPs. Nothing should distract now! But is everything about Vanguard new inventions of Simon Stevens?

Remember:
The thing that hath been,
it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done:
and there is no new thing under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9

Lets see what Bloomberg say:
BRITISH EXPERIENCE

UnitedHealth followed up on June 30 with another report for lawmakers pinpointing $332 billion in savings through better use of technology and administrative simplification. If enacted, those changes would potentially benefit UnitedHealth's Ingenix data-crunching unit. Ingenix, with annual revenue of $1.6 billion, is poised to establish a national digital clearinghouse to ensure the accuracy of medical payments and provide a centralized service for checking the credentials of physicians.

Stevens, an Oxford-educated executive vice-president at UnitedHealth, once served as an adviser to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In that capacity, Stevens tried to fine-tune the U.K.'s nationally run health system. Today he tells lawmakers that theU.S. need not follow Britain's example. Concessions already offered by the U.S. insurance industry—such as accepting all applicants, regardless of age or medical history—make a government-run competitor unnecessary, he argues. "We don't think reform should come crashing down because of [resistance to] a public plan," Stevens says. Many congressional Democrats have come to the same conclusion.

UnitedHealth has traveled an unlikely path to becoming a Washington powerhouse. Its last chairman and chief executive, William W. McGuire, cultivated a corporate profile as an industry insurgent little concerned with goings-on in the capital. From its Minnetonka(Minn.) headquarters, the company grew swiftly by acquisition. McGuire absorbed both rival carriers and companies that analyze data and write software. Diversification turned UnitedHealth into the largest U.S. health insurer in terms of revenue. In 2008 it reported operating profit of $5.3 billion on revenue of $81.2 billion. It employs more than 75,000 people. 

Stevens argues that while UnitedHealth will likely benefit financially from health reform, the company will also aid the cause of reducing costs. He cites what he says is its record of "bending the cost curve" for major employers. 

During a media presentation in May in Washington, Stevens said medical costs incurred by UnitedHealth's corporate clients were rising only 4% annually, less than the industry average of 6% to 8%. But that claim seemed to conflict with statements company executives made just a month earlier during a conference call with investors. On that quarterly earnings call, UnitedHealth CEO Hemsley conceded that medical costs on commercial plans would increase 8% this year. 

Asked about the discrepancy, Stevens says the lower figure he is using in Washington represents the experience of a subset of employer clients who fully deployed UnitedHealth's cost-saving techniques, including oversight of the chronically ill. "These employers stuck at it for several years," he says. "We are putting forward positive ideas based on our experience of what works."

Now 4 days later Steven Carne in Open Democracy:

And Stevens' PACS (part of Vanguard) are explicitly modelled on San Francisco's Kaiser Permanante’s Accountable Care Organisation model (a latter development of the American HMO model)- despite US concerns about restrictions on which patients can be treated where, long wait times, and still high costs.

I asked a friend in California recently what Kaiser were like. She smiled, “Oh they're great! ‘Til you get sick”. Their focus on prevention and health resilience belies a reluctance to provide full health care that might cost shareholders their profit. Only a top-up payment plan will see you in the real hospital.

SNAP.

England has never seen anything quite like this:
Steven Carne again:


This dishonest vocabulary aims to fool the public into supporting a host of dubious changes. It relies on a counterpoint image of a desperately archaic NHS, crumbling in an inevitable apocalypse of overweight aging diabetic bed blockers who really should know better and die in their own beds – “Care Closer to Home”.
It glosses over the fact that public funding is being withheld (and wasted on market bureaucracy).
The manipulative buzzword bingo tries to persuade us that when we take part in their endless focus groups, petitions and surveys, we are helping the ‘struggling’, ‘failing’ NHS to meet the ‘challenges of the 21st century’.
It hides the fact that private corporations are moving in and setting the agendas. It hides the fact that behind the trusted blue square of the NHS logo, private health and insurance firms are already operating, mostly unseen by the public.
At a recent event we were given another buzz phrase. “Be the Change You Want to Be...”
We are learning as quickly as we can. But the actions and spin of NHS England and the corporate health, insurance, technology and pharma companies are bewildering and confusing to those of us trying to keep up. Just as we’d begun to get our heads around 2012’s Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and Commissioning Support Units (CSUs), new NHS boss Simon Stevens’s Five Year Plan ushered in a new layer of jargon and organisational spaghetti – Primary & Acute Care Systems (PACS) and Multidisciplinary or Multispecialty Health Teams (MHTs).

If you read it thinking it made any sort of reasonable sense - then we need to worry.

One of the key weapons being used against the NHS, public and campaigners is the growing misuse of socially minded vocabulary and community development buzzwords.

You’ll all have come across them. Engaged, participatory, resilient, empowering, co-produced, personalised, sustainable….

You’ll find these buzzwords all over the NHS, mixed with a dash of new age personal therapy speak borrowed from the West Coast of America (as we’ll see shortly, there are other imports from the West Coast, too).

……. This dishonest vocabulary aims to fool the public into supporting a host of dubious changes. It relies on a counterpoint image of a desperately archaic NHS, crumbling in an inevitable apocalypse of overweight aging diabetic bed blockers who really should know better and die in their own beds – “Care Closer to Home”.

It glosses over the fact that public funding is being withheld (and wasted on market bureaucracy).



The thing that hath been,
it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done:
and there is no new thing under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9

NHS-Kaiser Permanente: Integration or Fragmentation?

Monday, September 7, 2015

NHS-Integration: Vanguard or Kaiser Permanente!

Simon Stevens spent some years in the US. Is Vanguard a re-working of Kaiser Permanente?

Ray of hope from USA?


 California©2007 Am Ang Zhang 
When all the talk is about trying to emulate Kaiser Permanente in the NHS reform up and down the country, my observation is that unless there is some radical rethink, the new NHS may end up as removed from Kaiser Permanente as imaginable.
Ownership and integration has undoubtedly been the hallmark of Kaiser Permanente and many observers believe that this is the main reason for its success, not so much the offering of choice to its members. Yes, members, as Kaiser Permanente is very much a Health Club, rather than an Insurer.  Also, a not so well known fact is that Kaiser doctors are not allowed to practise outside the system.

It is evident that the drive to offer so called choice in the NHS, and the ensuing cross-billing, has pushed up cost.  The setting up of poor quality ISTC (Independent Sector Treatment Centres) that are hardly used is a sheer wastage of resources.  When Hospital Trusts are squeezed, true choice is no longer there.  Kaiser Permanente members  in fact sacrifice choice for a better value health (and life style) programme.

The push for near 80% of GP commissioning is to lure the public into thinking that they are going to be better served.  In fact this is a very clever way to limit health spending and at the same time leave the rationing to the primary care doctors in a very un-integrated system.

So what about the specialist doctors that we call consultants in England?  Well, some are already offering their services in a private capacity to the GPs via PCTs, who are at liberty to buy those services. The NHS pay for hospital Consultants has now lagged behind that of GPs, and many consultants supplement their income by private work. Once you have had a taste of Porsche and Ferrari, are you going to go back to Rover?  A few major insurers are poised to buy up Foundation Hospitals and offer consultants a deal they cannot refuse.  This will lead us further away from the Kaiser Permanente ideal of an integrated system.

The most conservative estimate is that Consultant income will increase by 300% in the new private provider dominated specialist service. Has anyone not noticed that you buy private insurance to get your Specialist treatment? The gatekeeper is still your friendly GP.

The total income for all Private Health Insurers is currently estimated at around £6.5 billion, a quarter of which goes to the Specialists.

The NHS is already funding 20 to 25% of the Private sector.

By contrast, Kaiser Permanente is in part successful by doing away with the internal market and fees for service.

I know, the abolishment of internal market and cross charges will mean job losses for the accounting department, but we may then get more nurses and other clinical staff.

The conclusion?  There is an alternative: full integration via Foundation Trust Hospitals.

There is no reason why Foundation Trust Hospitals, once free of central control, cannot be responsible for training doctors (medical schools) and offer an integrated service from Primary to Secondary care.  A sort of “Free” Hospital (as in “Free” School) concept.  Ownership will be by us, the people.

This will be like the old NHS, more integrated!!! 


NY Times: