DH in talks for 'international players' to take on struggling hospitals
The Department of Health has held discussions about “international players” running up to 20 NHS hospitals, according to confidential emails.
Correspondence between DH managing director for provider development Ian Dalton and consultants McKinsey and Company was obtained by campaigners at Spinwatch under the Freedom of Information Act.
An email from the consultants to Mr Dalton in November last year said there had been “good discussions” on “how international hospital provider groups may help to tackle the performance improvement of English hospitals.”
It said there was: “interest in [a] new solution for 10-20 hospitals”, but said this would be “starting from a mindset of one at a time” due to “various political constraints”.
The consultants suggested a figure of £500m revenue “on the table” and a “free hand on staff management” would be needed for “international players” to run hospitals.
Private involvement has been suggested as a solution for NHS trusts with financial difficulties that may not be able to attain foundation trust status. One hospital trust, Hinchingbrooke Health Care, is already set to be run in a franchise arrangement by private firm Circle, although the deal has been delayed awaiting ministerial sign off.
Further correspondence between McKinsey and DH director of provider delivery Matthew Kershaw also reveals the department has had discussions with German firm Helios Healthcare, which runs a number of hospitals. The agenda for a meeting between the consultants and the DH in February includes the item “London/Helios discussion”.
A Department of Health spokesperson said: “It is not unusual for the Department of Health to hold meetings with external organisations. Any decisions to involve outside organisations, such as the independent sector or foundation trusts, in running the management of NHS hospitals would be led by the NHS locally and in all cases NHS staff and assets would remain wholly owned by the NHS”.
- More on this story: German firm linked to DH hospital plan plays down involvement
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.
PDF
Share
Readers' comments (18)
Anonymous | 5-Sep-2011 1:58 pm
Could I suggest Cesc Fabregas and Cristiano Ronaldo? They are very good international players. (This advice is free of charge, unlike the chaps from Mckinsey!)
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 5-Sep-2011 2:09 pm
yet another cosy example of the DoH using management consultants at no doubt exhorbitant cost to tell them not a lot!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 5-Sep-2011 2:11 pm
Using the same metaphor they too only want to 'play' for the highest bidder, feather their own short lived career nests, are not interested in the stakeholders and care even less.
Other health economies would give a lot to have managers of the calibre in the NHS to advise them from this part of the international zone, what a pity the DH doesnt recognise them
Unsuitable or offensive?
Patrick Newman | 5-Sep-2011 2:35 pm
If staff continue to be wholly "owned" by the NHS there would not be a free hand on staff matters and even under TUPE there would be constraints and limitations in the short to medium term. If they want to replace the management who will meet the front load costs of severance of redeployment. If these international players have the magic dust they should make proposals to DoH for consultancy assistance. However before all this surely among the 168 Trusts there are professionals who can lift these "hospitals" up to a more general standard. It would help if the DoH would name (but not shame) those in need of much improvement.
Unsuitable or offensive?
maria nicholson | 5-Sep-2011 2:38 pm
This story about the emails exposes very clearly that despite what the ConDem's keep saying about the Bill the insidious plans to privatise the NHS. The whole thing is a total disgrace.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 5-Sep-2011 3:22 pm
Is this another example of the DH's over-reliance on Mckinsey? Perhaps the HSJ should run a FOI to see what tendering process was for this piece of work?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 5-Sep-2011 3:26 pm
Never mind the tender what about the appointment process to SHA clusters ? No advert, no transparent interview and no opposition to the "old guard" Beggars belief really or maybe not given the track record to date. One set of rules for them and another for us !
Unsuitable or offensive?
whitehall123 | 5-Sep-2011 3:34 pm
The Kershaw/Mckinsey correspondence really illustrates the strangle hold that Mckinsey have over the DH. It is really worrying that after undertaking the analysis that all of the QIPP £20bn is based on - without any other verification - Mckinsey now seem to be given carte blanche to define the provider landscape.
it also illustrates the ineptitude of diary management - why didn't somebody just pick up the phone?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 5-Sep-2011 4:03 pm
NHS Staff and assets remain wholly owned by the NHS? Whatever that is after another couple of years! Some sort of franchise I think!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 5-Sep-2011 5:13 pm
It is totally disingenuous to state that 'Any decisions to involve outside organisations, such as the independent sector or foundation trusts, in running the management of NHS hospitals would be led by the NHS locally'. Who are they kidding?
History tells us - Good Hope Hospital, Hinchingbrooke - that these decisions are made centrally and if the local leaders disagree they are simply replaced.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 5-Sep-2011 5:55 pm
What about Messi? Both a great player and an adjective!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 5-Sep-2011 5:56 pm
How long has Hinchingbrooke been going - I think I went for an interview there about five years ago and it was going to happen within 12 months.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 5-Sep-2011 5:57 pm
And if we were all given £500m and a free hand on staff would we be any better - sort of changes the rules slightly doesn't it?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 6-Sep-2011 12:37 pm
French system 40% plus private provision, they have choice, no waits, clean hospitals, best in world outcomes. How dare they try and intorduce that into the NHS.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 6-Sep-2011 1:45 pm
The continuing reliance on the giant squid that is McKinsey (far worse than Goldman in my opinion) is a really condemnation of the top leadership in the NHS.
Please let us break free of their fanciful ideas - "if we get to the top decile we shall save $squillions" - using 'McKinsey' as an cryptogram I can see:
I, me, nick, inky, neck (as in ' a lot of...'), skim, sink and last but not least, sick
Prizes for other and better words please!!!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 6-Sep-2011 6:25 pm
They miss the fundamental reason why these Trusts are in trouble - there are too many hospitals! the solution is not international private sector management but of strong macro-planning by DH and commissioners. This wont happen, however, as its politically unacceptable.
Plus ca change.....
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 6-Sep-2011 8:00 pm
Lets just think about this, is it new? remember franchise of zero rated trusts? Ops wasn't one of those Good Hope and what lessons have we learnt from that exercise? Looking for a quick fix isn't going to take the issues away - we have too many hospitals and we need to face up to the quality and financial issues we are facing.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 7-Sep-2011 9:22 am
And of course the French system is not free at the point of delivery - outcomes are pretty similar.
Unsuitable or offensive?