100 signatures reached
To: NHS England
Require CCGs to be transparent and even-handed
Oblige CCGs to:
1. Treat local press and radio as primary routes for keeping the public informed of their activities.
2. Require members with links to private sector providers (i.e. non-NHS and not-for-profit bodies) to stand down.
3. Declare what percentage of former in-house provision (i.e NHS and not-for-profit) CCGs have awarded to private contractors since inception 01.04.13.
4. Apply criteria re.working conditions, employee rights, wages, zero hours contracts, materials’ sourcing, before awarding contracts.
1. Treat local press and radio as primary routes for keeping the public informed of their activities.
2. Require members with links to private sector providers (i.e. non-NHS and not-for-profit bodies) to stand down.
3. Declare what percentage of former in-house provision (i.e NHS and not-for-profit) CCGs have awarded to private contractors since inception 01.04.13.
4. Apply criteria re.working conditions, employee rights, wages, zero hours contracts, materials’ sourcing, before awarding contracts.
Why is this important?
I have been trying to obtain responses to the following queries from my local East Lancashire CCG for a long time:
1. Will the CCG treat local press and radio as primary routes for keeping the public informed of its activities?
2. Will the CCG require members with links to private sector providers to stand down?
3. Since its inception 01.04.13., what percentage of former in-house provision has the CCG awarded to private contractors?
4. In awarding contracts, what criteria do the CCG apply other than cost?
In effect, the answers to '1' and '2', were 'no'. After prevarication, the answer given to '3' is 0%. Working conditions, etc., were not included in answer to '4'.
The failure to treat local media as primary routes for keeping the public informed makes a mockery of East Lancashire CCG's commitment to be '... accountable to local people'.
Failing to exclude persons with private sector health provision connections brings into question the award of contracts to such organisations. Local GPs have formed a private limited company, and our CCG is 'Led by clinicians ...'. Should a contract be awarded to the GPs' company, no matter how properly, can we imagine the response of the big beasts of private health provision? The CCG could be mired in legal challenges, at enormous cost, and with attendant delays to the provision of medical care.
0% to private contractors is difficult to reconcile with findings obtained under freedom of information legislation for the period April 2013-August 2014: ‘... analysis of the data supplied by clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) showed that 1149 contracts (33% of the total) were awarded to private sector providers ...’. BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal) ‘A third of NHS contracts have gone to private sector ...’. 10.12.14.
Other than emphasising, ‘Quality of service’, the CCG had nothing to add to an earlier response. When awarding contracts, the CCG's omission of criteria re. working conditions, employee rights, wages, zero hours contracts, and materials’ sourcing plays to the advantage of private health providers. (Just type 'private health providers' and 'scandals' into a search engine. I did so, with about 658,000 results in 0.30 seconds.)
Incidentally, I put these matters to East Lancashire CCG by email 29.03.15. To date, I have had no reply. Maybe my follow-up letter to our local paper, the Rossendale Free Press, published 01.05.15, will be more successful in prompting a response.
It is worth pointing out that I do not raise these concerns as a private individual. I belong to a local Patient Participation Group (PPG) and am charged with handling '... any dealings with, and to do with, the CCG on behalf of the PPG.'
Not only does the CCG show itself unaccountable to local people in general, but it doesn't see the need to account to our local Patient Participation Group.
I can't imagine that concerns over my local CCG are not reflected across the entire country. Please support this petition if you share those concerns.
1. Will the CCG treat local press and radio as primary routes for keeping the public informed of its activities?
2. Will the CCG require members with links to private sector providers to stand down?
3. Since its inception 01.04.13., what percentage of former in-house provision has the CCG awarded to private contractors?
4. In awarding contracts, what criteria do the CCG apply other than cost?
In effect, the answers to '1' and '2', were 'no'. After prevarication, the answer given to '3' is 0%. Working conditions, etc., were not included in answer to '4'.
The failure to treat local media as primary routes for keeping the public informed makes a mockery of East Lancashire CCG's commitment to be '... accountable to local people'.
Failing to exclude persons with private sector health provision connections brings into question the award of contracts to such organisations. Local GPs have formed a private limited company, and our CCG is 'Led by clinicians ...'. Should a contract be awarded to the GPs' company, no matter how properly, can we imagine the response of the big beasts of private health provision? The CCG could be mired in legal challenges, at enormous cost, and with attendant delays to the provision of medical care.
0% to private contractors is difficult to reconcile with findings obtained under freedom of information legislation for the period April 2013-August 2014: ‘... analysis of the data supplied by clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) showed that 1149 contracts (33% of the total) were awarded to private sector providers ...’. BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal) ‘A third of NHS contracts have gone to private sector ...’. 10.12.14.
Other than emphasising, ‘Quality of service’, the CCG had nothing to add to an earlier response. When awarding contracts, the CCG's omission of criteria re. working conditions, employee rights, wages, zero hours contracts, and materials’ sourcing plays to the advantage of private health providers. (Just type 'private health providers' and 'scandals' into a search engine. I did so, with about 658,000 results in 0.30 seconds.)
Incidentally, I put these matters to East Lancashire CCG by email 29.03.15. To date, I have had no reply. Maybe my follow-up letter to our local paper, the Rossendale Free Press, published 01.05.15, will be more successful in prompting a response.
It is worth pointing out that I do not raise these concerns as a private individual. I belong to a local Patient Participation Group (PPG) and am charged with handling '... any dealings with, and to do with, the CCG on behalf of the PPG.'
Not only does the CCG show itself unaccountable to local people in general, but it doesn't see the need to account to our local Patient Participation Group.
I can't imagine that concerns over my local CCG are not reflected across the entire country. Please support this petition if you share those concerns.
