[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23465966NHS Direct looking for a way out of Dial 111[/url

If it ain't broke fix it, then keep on fixing it 'til it is broke beyond repair

...or, "We can't make any money out of this public service anymore, here, have it back..."

What should be of concern is that NHS Direct ran the service and established the business model of filtering the emergency calls out of the tidal wave of other stuff and then found after renegotiating that there was no money to be made by sticking to the business model.

So how are the other two operators who nicked some of the business off them doing ?

[url=http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/all/undercover-in-nhs-111We might find out at 8.00pm tonight[/url

Just listened to the story around this on [iThe World at One[/i on R4.
Apparently, they invited Hunt onto the programme but either he or his department turned them down, saying that the BBC should speak to NHS England.
So, it's OK for HMG to force the privatisation but when it fails it's NHS England's fault.
Bodes well for the future of the NHS in general doesn't it?

Some years back, I had cause to call NHS Direct in the evening (at about 20:00) and was impressed that they got me an appointment at the local hospital at 22:15 that same evening.
Mind you, I spoke to a clinically-trained professional straight away ... the privatised 111 service has to use non-clinically-trained call-centre staff in order to keep the costs down or they won't make a profit. (NHS direct was costing £20 per call, the privatised service can be £7-to-£9 per call).
I might be naive but I think I've spotted a flaw there.

I've only ever had cause to ring NHS Direct once, some years ago with my little kidney stone issue, although it wasn't me who was on the phone to them, I was bent over the toilet bowl throwing up with the pain = they too were very good, asked several questions and then re-assured my wife that I wasn't dying

and so it wouldn't be an emergency call-out but the next available, with hindsight it was handled very well and they were correct with their telephone diagnosis although it didn't feel like it from my viewpoint at the time - there was also the knowledge that the people who ran the service then were actually medically qualified, I'm not so sure I'd be so re-assured that I wasn't going to die if it happened now, not knowing that it could be a trainee on the other end of the line (see the link in cod'eads post).

And in "other NHS news", we have:

[url=http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/private-hospital-asks-govt-for-3-5m-loan-while-renewing-200m-contract/Circle Health requesting a £ multi-millions loan from the government[/url

Once again: state bad - private good eh?

Sounds like profit privatised whilst risk is socialised.
Also, there's an interesting link in that article to another article about Tory links to Circle Health.

I don't think it's sufficient for MPs to merely declare interests in the register, it should be completely prohibited for MPs with such interests to take any part whatsoever in the area for which they are being paid by outside interests.
There's a word for it ... corruption... and they are getting away with it.

Currently doing a spot of work on this: from memory, there are 76 MPs and around 200 peers with private interests linked to private health (this can include the likes of PR work for private health companies).

They're not barred from voting on something that they have personal financial interests in. Councillors are – but not MPs and peers.

They should have to mention their interest every time they speak on those topics and be barred from being on a committee or voting on topics around those interests.
I can't think of a good reason why it isn't that way already.

I can: private financial gain. And they'd have to legislate on it themselves.

I got that ... which is why I said "good" reason.

The phrase is "confrontational politics", its what our parliament is built on, the way its worked for hundreds of years.

The argument goes that in order to present a balanced view you have to have representatives from both sides to present those views and if an MP is employed by one of the interested parties then he's in a good position to present that point.

Where the wheel fall off is when a majority of MP's have business interests in various parties and whilst declaring them in a often ignored register, fail to mention the fact during debates and votes - everyone has an opinion on a topic and thats why we place them in parliament but technically they should be there to represent the majority of their constituents views, not the view of a secret paymaster.

Oh I imagine they think there's no better one.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23518732Jeremy Hunt's plan to downgrade Lewisham hospital because a neighbouring PFI-funded trust (in a Tory borough) is in trouble ruled unlawful by the high court.[/url

Excellent news.

Aye - I hope there are a few mispronounced attempts at his name in the coverage later too.

It's going to be interesting to see what Jeremy Hunt has to say about the latest revelation:

[url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-hospital-corporation-america-donates-2246513Tory donor handed huge NHS contract[/url

This really is the politics of the loony bin

Got a letter recently about my daughter from the "NHS Community Child Health" - at least it has the NHS logo on. But, it also has a "Virgincare" logo too and the email address is a Virgincare one (positioned under the NHS logo). Seems like just about everything is now privatised. In my experience, any business with the "Virgin"name in it is to be avoided.

The most recent [url=http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirrorCommonwealth Fund Comparative Study into Healthcare Systems[/url shows that rather than being the "basket case" that the tories and their lapdog press would have us believe, our NHS actually ranks No.1 in all but three categories and of the remainder, we rank 2nd & 2rd with only "Healthy Lives" trailing at 10th (but still ahead of the USA)

How does this information tally with your 'NHS RIP' statement on 1 April 2013?

What the Tories would have us believe? Not Andy Burnham, "Dr". Eoin "I'm very sorry I won't print these entirely false allegations again" Clarke or the Guardian?

Still, it goes to show that privatisation in the NHS works. The NHS under the Tories, ranked number 1 in the world.

The figures are from 2011 numb nuts.

The tories hadn't even begun to start their decimation yet and hopefully they won't be allowed to continue for much longer

See above

You should really look more carefully at what you post then, look across the bottom of the helpful table and it tells you where the info is taken from, years 2011, 2012 and 2013.

Numb nuts? That's all the likes of you have, insults to make up for a startling lack of intelligence.

Go on, tell us about how how privatisation of the NHS is evil and then how you voted for a party that promised to privatise the NHS.

Privatisation works. Accept it and move on. The Tories have saved the NHS.

A public health policy using private companys funded by tax income can work in some sectors, but the "improvment" in services can be short term when a few years into the contract investors start to realise that there is no killing to be made in share trading when the business is tied to revenue incomes that are static, linked only to inflation or subject to varying political will -the only real way to increase profits year on year is to reduce costs or go back to your paymaster and complain that their demands and standards are too high and hint that you wont be interested at the next round of tender bids, depending on the political will prevailing at the time you'll probably get a sympathetic ear, particularly if some of the chiefs in your paymasters are private shareholders or are rather hoping to be on your payroll when they lose their current position.

You also have the undeniable fact that some sectors of healthcare are just too specialist labour intensive to run cheaply or at a profit at all -you wouldnt want an A&E dept run by temps or left unstaffed when a bean counter "forecasts" a period of low demand. What you end up with then is a basic public health provision of expensive unprofitable sectors with the rest of it cherry picked and in private hands - rather like the Spanish health service for instance - all of which is fine and dandy while you are young, fit and in work and can afford or are given private health cover, but no use to you whatsoever if you have a long term condition, are unemployed or retired, none of whom are welcome through the doors of your average private health provider.

I'll repeat this again, everyone who comments on this thread should first of all go to one of the private providers web sites and get a quote for a similer level of cover that they currently have in the NHS, its usually the "gold cover", then report back here what it would cost them, I have Aviva mailshotting me every month with quotes that range from £96 to £110 a month, thats just for me and not my family and is based on perfect health and no pre-existing conditions, and rather more sinister, certain limits on chronic or terminal conditions.

A public health policy using private companys funded by tax income can work in some sectors, but the "improvment" in services can be short term when a few years into the contract investors start to realise that there is no killing to be made in share trading when the business is tied to revenue incomes that are static, linked only to inflation or subject to varying political will -the only real way to increase profits year on year is to reduce costs or go back to your paymaster and complain that their demands and standards are too high and hint that you wont be interested at the next round of tender bids, depending on the political will prevailing at the time you'll probably get a sympathetic ear, particularly if some of the chiefs in your paymasters are private shareholders or are rather hoping to be on your payroll when they lose their current position.

You also have the undeniable fact that some sectors of healthcare are just too specialist labour intensive to run cheaply or at a profit at all -you wouldnt want an A&E dept run by temps or left unstaffed when a bean counter "forecasts" a period of low demand. What you end up with then is a basic public health provision of expensive unprofitable sectors with the rest of it cherry picked and in private hands - rather like the Spanish health service for instance - all of which is fine and dandy while you are young, fit and in work and can afford or are given private health cover, but no use to you whatsoever if you have a long term condition, are unemployed or retired, none of whom are welcome through the doors of your average private health provider.

I'll repeat this again, everyone who comments on this thread should first of all go to one of the private providers web sites and get a quote for a similer level of cover that they currently have in the NHS, its usually the "gold cover", then report back here what it would cost them, I have Aviva mailshotting me every month with quotes that range from £96 to £110 a month, thats just for me and not my family and is based on perfect health and no pre-existing conditions, and rather more sinister, certain limits on chronic or terminal conditions.