NHS ‘Blood and Guts’ for Global Venture Capital Profit ?

_56770618_units blood

As a child, when my grandmother would say, ‘They’d skin a flea for its hide and fat’, I didn’t know how right she was.

With an ever increasing free supply, in 2011 of 2 million units of blood red cells ( £125 a Unit),3,500 organs,4,000 tissue donors and 2,200 banked cord blood units, successive governments realised our ‘blood and guts’ could be worth a fortune on the global venture capital market .

So in 2008, a three year Strategic Plan created an Organ Donation Taskforce and a National Blood Service Strategy Review.

https://nhsbtdbe.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-assets-corp/1854/nhsbt_strategic_plan_2011_14.pdf

Then came Andrew Lanley’s NHS Blood and Transplant Commercial Review in 2011

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/215390/dh_130563.pdf

NHS Blood and Transplant is a joint England and Wales Special Health Authority was responsible for securing the safe supply of blood to the NHS in England and North Wales providing solid organs, tissues and haematopoietic stem cells to the NHS,and UK-wide responsibility for provision of organs from deceased donors for transplantation.
It also manages the NHS Organ Donor Register, the British Bone Marrow Registry and the NHS Cord Blood Bank

The Review concluded, ‘It is important that NHSBT operates as cost-effectively as possible, as this demonstrates good stewardship of public money and also, by reducing its costs, releases more money to be invested in patient care’.

Not surprisingly, it found,
‘Contracting out certain functions was the only one way of achieving greater cost-effectiveness’;

ie selling them off for profit, to allow any undisclosed buyer, forever control and profit from our freely given ‘blood and guts’ And the NHS has expense of buying the products back.

Other UK blood transfusion services were not included in the Review, but it was noted that there were opportunities for all the UK blood services to achieve efficiency savings through closer collaboration ( presumably with their for profit partners).

The Department of Health was recommended to lead on future work but the decision was left until after the Health and Social Care Bill 2010-11.

Which, largely gave away DOH powers, by placing all funds with NHS England through its local CCGs allowing them to sell off at will

NHSBT already outsourcers most of its support systems

In May 2011 when the NHSBT signed a contract for £150,000 per year to supply a company with 500 litres of surplus plasma, the Bureau of invetigative journalism were unable to obtain the name of the buyer, as NHSBT press officer was unable under their contract‘ but said the purchaser was based in the EU.

A Freedom of Information request was similarly dismissed on commercial confidentiality.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/opinion/2011-07-27/analysis-who-is-buying-our-donated-blood

In July 2013 the government sold its 80% share in blood products company, Plasma Resources UK, which supplies the NHS with treatments for haemophilia and immune deficiencies to a US private equity firm Bain Capital for £230m

Former Health Minister Lord Owen said sensitive health assets should not be owned by a firm without shareholders and “answerability”

And Lord Owen, who sought to make the UK self-sufficient in blood supplies as Labour health minister in the 1970s, told BBC the sale was “extraordinary”.

“Remember this was bought by the Labour government in 2002, because of the danger to contamination of blood supplies by CJD – which most people think of as mad cow disease – and it was bought for the NHS and owned by the NHS.

“This is being sold to a private equity capital – this is not a public company with shareholders and public responsibilities and answerability.

Lord Owen, himself, an advisor to private equity firm – Terra Firma – said private,

equity had its uses but added: “What they basically do is fatten it up over a few years, invest in order to sell at very high substantial prices.”

He said that, while the government might make a profit, there were concerns about the level of corporate governance of a sensitive health asset. adding
“Is there no limit to how this government will privatise assets?”

ttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23372989

Bain said it intended to change the firm into “a UK-based life sciences champion”.

So 3 years later, Bain sold its share- bought for 230 million, to Chinese company Creat, for £820m.

A lot of profit from our ‘blood and guts’

China’s plasma product supply companies are highly profitable businesses, as China is suffering a shortage of these products.

Creat’s press release said ‘Creat, a leading Chinese investment group, will invest £100 million in BPL to expand production capacity of lifesaving therapies, develop new products and access new markets.

Creat will support management’s ambition to transform BPL into ‘a global life-sciences champion’, serving more customers and patients in a greater number of markets around the world.

Creat being a long-term strategic investor with a track record of growing businesses

Dr Clive Peedell said ” Every sale of this kind increases the dangers the public are exposed to by privatisation. Health care is very big business globally.

But the NHS should not simply be a market competitor, looking for ways to maximise profit. It should be first and foremost a system which ensures that we all look after each other at our time of greatest need.

It is extremely worrying to see the NHS’ blood plasma supplies being written about only in the context of accessing more markets around the world, with no mention of the NHS, only to the Department of Health being a 20% shareholder.

The loss of blood plasma supplies will have dreadful consequences for patients, as will the potential increased risk of contamination. And I am warning that these are the real risks when lucrative global markets are the prime objective, not our own patient care in the NHS.”

https://nhaparty.org/nha-issues-warning-about-selling-nhs-blood-plasma-supplier-to-chinese-company-creat/

Advertisements

Counting the cost of the CQC: Abuse, Whorlton Hall and CQC spin doctors

See in detail the cover up of Danshell abuse and Whorlton Hall exposure since 2015 by the CQC and their connections with gov and media.

Alexander's Excavations

By Dr Minh Alexander NHS whistleblower and former consultant psychiatrist 14 June 2019

 

Summary A dismal spectacle of self-preservation, sly deflection and scapegoating of subordinates unfolded when CQC directors, Paul Lelliott Deputy Chief Inspector and Ian Trenholm Chief Executive appeared in front of the Joint Human Rights Committee on 12 June 2019.

They had been hauled in to answer questions about CQC’s suppression of a 2015 inspection report. The report described wide ranging and serious care failings that effectively amounted to institutional abuse, serious risks and allegations of mistreatment at Whorlton Hall, where BBC Panorama recently exposed serious abuse by staff. 

Although the CQC refused to hand over crucial documents, the Committee had in its possession internal CQC correspondence with Barry Stanley-Wilkinson CQC whistleblower. This put Lelliott in the thick of things in 2016, just before a whitewash alternative CQC report was published June 2016. The correspondence also revealed…

View original post 1,207 more words

THE NONSENSE OF NO DEAL BREXIT

As this nonsense is rejected by 11 votes today

What does this sadly show about our only opposition- Labour?

Abbot, Mc Donald, Corbyn wanting no No Deal?

How can you go into any negotiations without any weapon, any threat ?

Clearly without the allowance of a no deal your opposition knows you are a walk over

Any thing you fight for has no teeth so you need not be taken seriously

And you start with the ultimate weakness of not being able to withdraw

Your back is ab intio against the wall, so you can’t negotiate

And this is what Labour want ?

And why their adherence since Blair of third way no politics have got us in this mess

Eine Schwache und Mann is abserviert

And in negotiations No Deal is not just a Schwacke but a sell out.ta2-1024x576 NO DEAL

#FoolOfLaw: Endless #ProceduralAbuses show Julian #Assange case was never about #Law!

| truthaholics

Endless procedural abuses show Julian Assange case was never about law | Jonathan Cook | Redress Information & Analysis5 June 2019

Julian Assange after leaving Ecuadorian embassy

It is astonishing how often one still hears well-informed, otherwise reasonable people say about Julian Assange: “But he ran away from Swedish rape charges by hiding in Ecuador’s embassy in London.”

That short sentence includes at least three factual errors. In fact, to repeat it, as so many people do, you would need to have been hiding under a rock for the past decade – or, amounting to much the same thing, been relying on the corporate media for your information about Assange, including from supposedly liberal outlets such as the Guardian and the BBC.

At the weekend, a Guardian editorial – the paper’s official voice and probably the segment most scrutinised by senior staff – made just such a false claim:

Then there is…

View original post 2,429 more words

Child Protection Business

CP protection

Here is an article I wrote, published in the Solicitors Journal in February 2011

Treading Carefully

Children in the care of a local authority are now largely, the only children available for adoption since the advent of single parenthood and abortion.

However, this, together with the government’s continuing zeal for such adoptions, should not prejudice child protection, parental rights, or indeed the hard-to-adopt children lingering within the care system.

Such adoptions are already highly incentivised, used as they are as a local authority performance indicator and coming with a standard £25,000 bonus irrespective of how difficult it is to place a child.

In addition, the local authority’s preference to use other councils, or chosen ‘charitable partners’, such as Coram, to find families willing to adopt has resulted in the death of most private adoption agencies.

Conflicting interests
The chairman of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF), the adoption industry’s promoter, is also the chief executive of CAFCASS, a connection which is possibly illegal and definitely a potential source of conflict between CAFASS’ remit to act in a child’s best interests and BAAF’s to promote adoption.

This conflict is accentuated by CAFCASS’ partnership with Coram, the third largest adopter of children, and the practice of subcontracting Coram to perform all the local authority’s child protection and assessment duties.
Coram promotes concurrent planning, a process which expedites adoption by placing children immediately with their prospective adopters.

The process allows ‘charitable partners’ like Coram to provide the family support for local authorities, despite the conflict of interests between this provision and their adoption role per se, and the payment of a £35,000 fee upon an adoption – which by necessity is resultant upon the failure of their support package and their assessment of the parents. In addition, as charitable bodies, they are largely unaccountable for the quality of their services.

In order to form a bond with adopters, parents are only allowed an average of three contact visits per week, at the charity’s offices, sometimes supervised. But after such a bond has formed, parents will find it almost impossible to convince a judge that adoption will not be in the child’s welfare.

Of the 147 babies and infants involved in pilot concurrent planning projects, eight were returned to their parents. In the Manchester/Goodman projects, only one child out of 11 returned home, and, of the 37 actions supported by Coram in the Family Drug and Alcohol Court, only two families succeeded in keeping their children.

Without a parent’s express consent, or satisfaction of the care threshold criteria, a child’s removal and/or adoption will be unlawful and in breach of a parents’ human rights, actionable by section 7 of the Human Rights Act, in conjunction with article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights (right to a family) and article 6 (right to a fair trial), either on a freestanding basis or as part of any on-going care, or judicial review proceedings.

In Re M (Care Challenging Directions by Local Authority) [2001] 2FLR 1300, for instance, it was held that a local authority’s decision to adopt, made without parental involvement, was unlawful.

Vulnerable parents
Vulnerable, unrepresented parents may find that the only ‘support’ available results in the unlawful removal of their children, as “probably many mothers who believe, quite erroneously, that a local authority has power, without any court order, to do what the local authority did”, in the words of Mr Justice Munby in R(G) v Nottingham City Council [2008] EWHC 400.

The case involved the removal of a baby at birth from her 17-year-old ‘eligible child’ mother, in pursuance of an ‘agreed’ care pathway plan, solely on the illegal basis that the mother had not objected.

The council in the case still managed to obtain an interim care order even though the only protection issues were the mother’s vulnerability, lack of support and suitable residence. This was also despite the legal requirement that there should be “an imminent risk of really serious harm” (Mr Justice Ryder in Re L-A [2009] EWCA Civ 822) in addition to the consideration of “whether the continued removal of (a child) from the care of her parents is proportionate to the risk of harm to which she will be exposed if she is allowed to return to her parents’ care”.

Social workers are generally instructed to concentrate child protection on the under fives, and less than 20 per cent of all child protection plans in England in 2010 were due to physical or sexual abuse.

With care applications at an all-time high, averaging over 800 per month, and a senior family court judge describing social workers’ actions as “like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China”, we must question why child protection is now so adversarial and predetermined, and ensure that the right children are taken into care for the right reasons.
Issue: 
Vol 155 no 4 01-02-2011

all is much worse now with up to £54,000 paid by the gov per adoption and a 26 week care proceedings limit

A still unanswered question to DHSC about whether CQC will investigate individual whistleblowers’ concerns

HOW does CQC INVESTIGATE whistleblower complaints see below

Alexander's Excavations

Summary: In recent correspondence the Department of Health and Social Care official responsible for whistleblowing policy seemed to believe that CQC should ‘urgently’ investigate whistleblowers’ patient safety concerns. He agreed to take the issue up with his Department but then stopped responding to enquiries. In the aftermath of yet more grave abuse revelations at Whorlton Hall, where CQC only conducted a superficial thematic review in response to whistleblower concerns, the question about specific investigation has now been redirected to the Minister for Care and Gosport MP, Caroline Dinenage. Relevant correspondence is provided below.

BY EMAIL

Caroline Dinenage

Minister for Care

Department of Health and Social Care

25 May 2019

Dear Ms Dinenage,

Gosport, Whorlton Hall and CQC’s remit for investigating Individual Whistleblowers’ Concerns

I write regarding this simple and core issue of whistleblowing governance which remains unresolved, despite it being repeatedly raised with the government on repeated occasions…

View original post 2,410 more words

Whistle-blower withdraws offer to help police reopen probe into autistic abuse scandal  

NAS-MENDIP HOUSE

It appears, that unless it suits the government purpose, abuse in residential care will not be even revealed, let alone prosecuted and care provision ended.

see here how nothing happened and a whistleblower was silenced and abuse worse than Winterbourne and Whorlton Hall ignored by all in NAS MENDIP HOUSE

The abuse was in a home owned by NAS ‘the voice of autism’, paid at least £6,000 a week per resident, equal to 9,000 as tax free, for this abuse.

CQC ignored abuse, as did the local safeguarding authority for years.So there are no checks, no safeguarding and can be no whistleblowers.

The carer whistleblower will not now speak out to reopen the investigation for fear she will never work again.

So abuse can continue in NAS and everywhere with impunity, making huge profit out of public money, and this is the only funded care for life for our autistic and learning disabled.

They have been made cashcows without protection from anyone or state agency..

Govt Newspeak

My son is autistic and cases like this really upset me.

Protesters with placards outside the NAS offices
A whistle-blower who has vital evidence of serious abuse at a care home for autistic adults has retracted her offer to talk to police about what she witnessed, which could have led to them reopening their failed investigation.

Disability News Service (DNS) found out this week that Avon and Somerset police had failed to interview her, even though her whistleblowing played a key part in helping to expose the abuse scandal at Mendip House, which was run by the National Autistic Society (NAS).

The whistle-blower, Hannah*, had talked in depth to DNS this week about what she witnessed at Mendip House in Brent Knoll, Somerset, and revealed that she had never been interviewed by Avon and Somerset police.

Police have failed to bring any charges against those responsible for the abusive regime. And they confirmed this week that Hannah was…

View original post 1,983 more words