Report comment

9:13 back again.

Not ignoring the fact that it was ignored, 9:54 - in fact I made that point in the first place (post @ 5:40)!

I think there's a general concern about the fact that there are now independent organisations who have made it very clear that they ARE interested in providing medical services.

As a result, the sector as a whole can't claim that they are meeting their obligations if they are ignoring all of the issues around transparency, non-discrimination etc.

The inclusion of S75, and debate around this, has however brought the matter to the fore - in effect opening Pandora's Box - and, now that it's "out there" it is perhaps more likely that independents will challenge awards made without advertising etc.

If you'd like a conspiracy theory, was s75 included in order to trigger this debate? Or by kicking off about s75, have those opposed to it accidentally forced things further in the opposite direction than if they'd let sleeping dogs lie? I don't think we'll ever know.

Personally, I suspect s75 was intended as a gentle nudge to remind people to compete a few services and it's all blown up bigger than originally intended.

Irrespective, as mentioned in earlier post, the concern I'd have if I were a CCG is that breach of the new PCR's requires the courts to impose penalties and "the
overriding consideration is that the penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive"

See section 47N: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/2992/pdfs/uksi_20092992_en.pdf