Skip to main content

Privatized P3s: "transferring the risk" to the elderly and most vulnerable



As noted earlier, Britain's largest nursing home chain, Southern Cross is going kaput, and despite all the chatter from government proponents and business about how such public private partnerships (P3s) transfer risk from the public to the private, it is the most vulnerable members of the public who are taking it on the chin.    


Some useful comments from Max Pemberton of Britain's leading (and normally conservative) newspaper The Telegraph on how this privatization deal transferred the risk to the elderly and most vulnerable: 
While the Government insists that no residents will end up homeless as a result of Southern Cross’s collapse, ministers have been unable to give assurances that residents will not have to be placed elsewhere.
There is a wealth of research to show that moving individuals who are settled in nursing homes has a severe impact on their well-being. There is a clear correlation between such upheaval and an increase in morbidity and mortality. There is also research to show that elderly patients with dementia are more likely to experience a deterioration in their symptoms, becoming more confused, disruptive and requiring higher levels of personal care when moved to a new care home.
Those with learning disabilities exhibit signs of emotional distress and depression, often resorting to self-harming behaviours such as headbanging or hand-biting. These institutions have become ''home’’ to the residents, and being forced to move home is a disorientating, scary and bewildering experience for a group of people who need stability and routine. Yet, because a private company provides their care, there is nothing that can be done to ensure they are protected from this.
This situation has arisen because Southern Cross was bought by private equity firms which effectively asset stripped it using the controversial “sale and leaseback” strategy. This meant that the homes owned by Southern Cross were sold off to more than 80 private landlords, thus releasing their equity, and then leased back to the company. When rents rose and income dropped, the company ran into problems and folded.
It is a horrifying and timely warning to those in the Government seeking to increase the role that private providers have in health care. Under the current NHS reforms, situations such as this will only increase as more responsibility for care provision is handed over to private companies.
This must not be allowed to happen. We must protect those who have no voice from losing their homes, and ensure the debacle of Southern Cross, with its tragic consequences, is never repeated. In the pursuit of profits, it is the vulnerable and infirm that suffer while shareholders get rich.

Dot Gibson, general secretary of the National Pensioners Convention, said: There is little doubt that forcing residents to move will in some cases have fatal consequences.  Serious questions should be asked as to whether having 80 different landlords in charge of 752 care homes is a proper way of running our social care system. How can the interests of some of our most vulnerable older people be protected when profit is the driving motive?”

Asked whether the likes of  Southern Cross chief executive Jamie Buchan will be paid for a full year's work even after Southern Cross ceases to exist, the company has no answer.  Company big wigs may be paid to do nothing. 

Meanwhile, local governments are stuck with the responsibility to make sure the elderly get care.  


And this may not be the end: Laing&Buisson report that "more operators of residential care homes for the elderly could be forced into administration thanks to ever tightening margins".

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Health care funding falls, again

Real provincial government health care funding per-person has fallen again this year in Ontario, the third year in a row.  Since 2009 real funding per-person has fallen 2.6% -- $63 per person. 

Across Canada real per person funding is in its fourth consecutive year of increase. Since 2009, real provincial funding across Canada is up $89 -- 3.6%.
In fact the funding gap between Ontario and Canada as a whole has gown consistently for years (as set out below in current dollars).

Ontario funds health care less than any other province -- indeed, the province that funds health care the second least (B.C.) provides $185 more per person per year, 4.7% more.  
Provincial health care spending in the rest of Canada (excluding Ontario) is now  $574 higher per person annually than in Ontario. 

 Ontario has not always provided lower than average health care funding increases-- but that has been the general pattern since 2005.
Private expenditures on health care have exceeded Ontario government increases …

Ontario long-term care staffing falls far short of other provinces

CUPE and others are campaigning for a legislated minimum average of four worked hours of nursing and personal care per resident per day in long-term care (LTC) facilities.  New research indicates that not only is LTC underfunded in Ontario, it is also understaffed compared to the other provinces. 
LTC staffing falls short:  The latest data published by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (and based on a mandatory survey undertaken by Statistics Canada) indicates that staffing at long-term care (LTC) facilities falls far short of other provinces. 
Part of this is driven by a low level of provincial funding for LTC.





Ontario has 0.575 health care full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) per bed staffed and in operation.[1]  The rest of Canada reports 0.665 health care FTEs.[2] The rest of Canada has 15.7% more health care staff per bed staffed and in operation than Ontario.[3] 


No other province reports fewer LTC health care staff per resident (or per bed) than Ontario.[4]

Occupancy r…

Six more problems with Public Private Partnerships (P3s)

The Auditor General (AG) has again identified issues in her annual reportwhich reflect problems with Ontario health care capacity and privatization.   First, here are six key problems with the maintenance of the 16 privatized P3 ("public private partnership") hospitals in Ontario:
There are long-term ongoing disputes with privatized P3 contractors over the P3 agreements, including about what is covered by the P3  (or “AFP” as the government likes to call them) contract.The hospitals are required to pay higher than reasonable rates tothe P3 contractor for  maintenance work the contractor has deemed to be outside of the P3 contract. Hospitals are almost forced to use P3 contractors to do maintenance work the contractors deem outside of the P3 contract or face the prospect of transferring the risk associated with maintaining the related hospital assets from the private-sector company back to the hospitalP3 companies with poor perf…