Lockheed Martin in the frame for £1bn NHS contract

American defence giant Lockheed Martin was one of a number of private companies represented at a recent meeting hosted by NHS England, for those interested in taking over the contract, which largely involves administrative functions.

G4S, whose handling of security at the London 2012 Olympics drew widespread criticism, also attended the meeting, as did KPMG and the US law firm DLA Piper. No potential NHS bidders attended, according to the Health Service Journal (HSJ).

The contract, which is likely to be awarded early next year, is one of the biggest ever put out to tender by the NHS.

Link

Sounds peculiar that LM would be interested in taking over the NHS. The contract is worth more than the current cost of running the NHS so they must have some motive behind this offer to not finish the 10 year contract at a loss. People don't just throw away money and improve healthcare, surely?

Thoughts?

(sorry if this has already been posted, I couldn't find any mention)

g4s AVOID
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: constant_thought

As well as developing military hardware including the F-35 fighter plane, Lockheed Martin already provides IT services to several public sector organisations, and has worked with NHS providers before

www.indepe ndent.co.uk
From the article.

Fingers have been in the pie for a while by the looks of things.

a reply to: marc72

That is true and it did surprise me the extent of how much tech they are behind, but there's a difference between the NHS running their software and them running the NHS.

Just seems like an odd move to me, it's like BAE running Obamacare!

It's seems to me company's have to be diverse to survive. Look at English Electric. Everything from the Lighting to washing machines.
Wiki English Electric

originally posted by: constant_thought
Sounds peculiar that LM would be interested in taking over the NHS.

They're not "taking over the NHS" - read your article again. It's only for some administrative and support functions.

It's also not unusual for them either, LM have already got several contracts with various Public bodies in the UK and have experience in this. They don't just make fighter jets.

originally posted by: constant_thought
The contract is worth more than the current cost of running the NHS so they must have some motive behind this offer to not finish the 10 year contract at a loss. People don't just throw away money and improve healthcare, surely?

"Worth more than the current cost of running the NHS?" - £1Bn?

The NHS in the UK costs around £120Bn a year (give or take a few) - again, this contract is simply for some back office functions, not "the NHS".

originally posted by: constant_thought
Thoughts?

Yes - you're a little confused about your own story.

Starred and agreed but it's a small step in the wrong direction in my opinion.

What starts off small often get bigger and before you know it...



a reply to: stumason

a reply to: nonspecific

To be honest, despite all the hype and BS reporting about the supposed "privatisation" of the NHS, as long as it is free at the point of use, I couldn't give a monkeys over who runs it as long as standards either remain the same or improve.

A good few European countries have already done what the Government is trying to do in the UK and they have far better Health services than we do, shorter waiting times, choices of doctors/hospitals etc. A public/private mix is best of both worlds, providing, as I said, it remains free at the point of use.

Agreed, it's open to updating but I would not like to see our national health service go the same way as other nationalised services.

Most of the cash now goes to other countries goverments as they own our services. Electric, gas, water, rail ect.

I do not understand why we allowed this to happen, we might as well give billions away for no reason and then struggle?

a reply to: stumason

a reply to: nonspecific

Agreed. Personally I think it ought to be against the law for anyone who works on NHS grounds, NHS administration, or anywhere within our health service, to receive a paycheck from anyone except Her Majesties government. But there again, I also believe that handing any government work to private enterprises is wrong.

Put simply, if the roads need fixing, the Highways Agency should be the only people allowed to operate road crews to fix it. If weapons need testing, then only MoD employees ought to be allowed to carry out that work, or any support function which facilitates it. If front desks at police stations need manning, then a police constable should be the one sitting there, not some jumped up shopping centre security guard!

If capitalism means, that the state does not handle its own affairs, then I for one could use less of it in my diet.

a reply to: stumason

haha thank you.
I was paraphrasing the article which mentioned something similar but I must have misunderstood the statement, obviously failing to note the profits on top of the cost or running the NHS.

The 10-year contract is understood to be worth more than the current cost of running the services, which currently employ 1,600 people.

I'm shooting from the hip here but would not this kind of privatisation affect NI?

I understand it is strugglung but that is why we pay it.

If it is to be farmed out to private corperations then vital cash will be going to shareholders so our NI contributions will be comprimised.

Maybe I am getting this the wrong way round. Opinions please?

a reply to: TrueBrit

a reply to: TrueBrit

Quite often, but not always the case, a private firm can actually do it better than a Government agency, for a variety of reasons. Experience being one, having the best employees being another. It is quite often the case that those employed in Civil service jobs are not the best available, they get complacent as they have no risk to their jobs and they get big fat final salary pensions at a younger age than the Private sector do, there is no incentive to do the best job and even if you fail, you rarely get punished for it.

Another factor to consider is that farming out work is usually on a fixed price contract, so it is easier to budget for. There are also penalties involved, so if that firm fails targets it can lose money (costing the taxpayer less). It is also a political decision, because if you end up with an over bloated public body and need to slim it down, this causes all manner of problems for the Government (it's a vote loser), whereas if a private firm runs it, it is usually far more efficient in the first place.

a reply to: nonspecific

It won't affect NI. As described above, contracts like this are always a fixed price entity and usually have penalties. If the private firm wishes to turn a profit, they need to do everything they agreed to do and more efficiently too. So it can actually be a benefit - we continue to get the same level (or increased level) of service or the private firm gets punished for it, so there is an incentive to deliver on the contract at the price agreed.

The same goes if they, say, outsource diagnostics for NHS patients to private Hospitals. When the GP is looking to hire services, they will go for the one offering the best value (wait times, cost, proximity etc) - so maybe the NHS hospital will get the job, or maybe a private Hospital, but both entities will be competing so it should keep costs to the minimum, rather than the monopoly at the moment the NHS has where you simply have no choice but to wait 3 months for your scan.

Instead, you can go the next day to a BUPA, they get paid for it and the NHS hospital doesn't - right here, there is then an incentive for the NHS hospital to either improve the wait time or abandon offering that service altogether and concentrate on other services it can deliver. This should then lead to more efficient NHS hospitals (as they only offer the services they need to rather than having to offer all services and pay for them.

Part of me would love to agree with you, the other part wants to point out that I am not some lefty liberal hippy.

I would ask one simple question if I may.

How is a health service that has a primary concern for shareholders expected to benifit the people that are to be benificiarys when said shareholders will be rich enough to have private health care?

Are your close family and friends in the group that will benifit of that will suffer?

a reply to: stumason

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: TrueBrit

Quite often, but not always the case, a private firm can actually do it better than a Government agency, for a variety of reasons. Experience being one, having the best employees being another. It is quite often the case that those employed in Civil service jobs are not the best available, they get complacent as they have no risk to their jobs and they get big fat final salary pensions at a younger age than the Private sector do, there is no incentive to do the best job and even if you fail, you rarely get punished for it.

Uh... The most experienced staff are the ones who get the most work, and those tend to be the people who have served the majority, not the minority. In this case, those who do the majority of their professional work for the often over run NHS, are clearly seeing more patients, doing more hours, and therefore having more experience than their private counterparts. This goes for paper pushers as well as medical professionals. I am not saying that there should not be things like private hospitals for those who want them, far from it, because as you say, it's an incentive for people in the NHS to keep kicking the arse so to speak! However the NHS should not be paying companies to provide personnel and services. It should be paying the personnel to provide the services as direct employees.

Another factor to consider is that farming out work is usually on a fixed price contract, so it is easier to budget for. There are also penalties involved, so if that firm fails targets it can lose money (costing the taxpayer less). It is also a political decision, because if you end up with an over bloated public body and need to slim it down, this causes all manner of problems for the Government (it's a vote loser), whereas if a private firm runs it, it is usually far more efficient in the first place.

How a body looks to the voters should not be the concern of Government. That is for us to judge for ourselves. Governments job is to ensure that services are provided, not as cheaply as possible, but properly, effectively, on time, and with accountability to the people. When you hand over responsibility for certain aspects of the running of a department or institution, like the NHS to private entities, the only people they are accountable to are the shareholders of that company or entity. I like the sound of that, about as much as I like the sound of being strapped to a chair and forced to listen to Justin Beibers entire discography for a week solid.

My attitude to this sort of thing, is that until government cleans up its act toward things like the shoddy state of the HMRC, who are getting double shafted by a company called Mapeley, who are taking obscene and unjustifiable markups on everything they supply to HMRC from office equipment to pens and notebooks, not to mention failing to pay the correct amount of tax on it, because they place all their money off shore, all by the way, because of a bad contract with a private company, then their concerns about the cost of the NHS and indeed everyone else's concerns about it, are unfounded.

There IS money to be saved, but that money needs to be taken back from the rich, powerful individuals who own companies like Mapeley, which behave in a mercenary fashion, and put into the NHS and other institutions in this nation, so that those departments and entities can actually function in the way they were intended. By that I mean by the people, and for the people, beholden to no shareholders, under no obligation to make money, but instead to be driven by what matters, that being a desire to do right by folk.

I have said beore that although we may disagree we can converse.

But the above post by Trubrit has to be an utter and I am not sure if this goes against t/c's an utter "twatting."

I would love us to continue this but maybe on another thread.

Long life.


a reply to: stumason

It's related to the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership)

www.independent.co.uk...

1 The NHS Public services, especially the NHS, are in the firing line. One of the main aims of TTIP is to open up Europe’s public health, education and water services to US companies. This could essentially mean the privatisation of the NHS. The European Commission has claimed that public services will be kept out of TTIP. However, according to the Huffington Post, the UK Trade Minister Lord Livingston has admitted that talks about the NHS were still on the table.

Then there are groups opposing this:

secure.38degrees.org.uk...

I think that is another thread and one that willl become apparent in the upcoming months.

It's a scary thought and no mistake.

a reply to: stormcell

originally posted by: marc72

It's seems to me company's have to be diverse to survive. Look at English Electric. Everything from the Lighting to washing machines.
Wiki English Electric

Probably more about keeping certain patents in right hands.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: nonspecific

To be honest, despite all the hype and BS reporting about the supposed "privatisation" of the NHS, as long as it is free at the point of use, I couldn't give a monkeys over who runs it as long as standards either remain the same or improve.

A good few European countries have already done what the Government is trying to do in the UK and they have far better Health services than we do, shorter waiting times, choices of doctors/hospitals etc. A public/private mix is best of both worlds, providing, as I said, it remains free at the point of use.

I think people should stop getting hung up over the NHS.

Like you I dont care as long as its free.

Dismantle the whole NHS for all I care and just replace with health insurance.