Friday, February 09, 2007
NHS moves to India
The Times reports on the latest set of jobs to go to India, a batch of accountancy ones from the NHS.
Whilst of course I welcome anything that might save the taxpayer money, I feel that a far more radical approach is needed. Why bother exporting jobs as such and why not just export the patients, the private hospitals in India are famed for their cleanliness and care, of course labour being much cheaper there, they also offer excellent value for money. There would I'm sure be quite a saving, not to mention the benefits to our patients, no waiting lists, no months of pain. They'd be further savings too in increased productivity and decreased benefit payments.
Of course it couldn't be used for everything, but think how much more beneficial it would be for many routine procedures. Anyway even without the NHS involvement, increased numbers of UK citizens are privately taking this option, but of course they still have to pay for the NHS as well.
The "money" quote on the present scheme comes from John Hutton the Health Minister: “The joint venture will generate significant cost savings - enough to pay for the annual salaries of 3,000 GPs or 12,000 nurses”. Notice the phrasing, why doesn't he express it in tax terms? He should say, the cost savings will result in a penny decrease in income tax, but of course it won't, and indeed this is why ultimately the move is just irrelevant. It's irrelevant because it won't increase the standard, so desperately needing increase, in patient care, and failing that, it won't result in any money going back to the taxpayer. Instead of the money being wasted on NHS accountants, it'll be wasted on some other turkey.
Whilst of course I welcome anything that might save the taxpayer money, I feel that a far more radical approach is needed. Why bother exporting jobs as such and why not just export the patients, the private hospitals in India are famed for their cleanliness and care, of course labour being much cheaper there, they also offer excellent value for money. There would I'm sure be quite a saving, not to mention the benefits to our patients, no waiting lists, no months of pain. They'd be further savings too in increased productivity and decreased benefit payments.
Of course it couldn't be used for everything, but think how much more beneficial it would be for many routine procedures. Anyway even without the NHS involvement, increased numbers of UK citizens are privately taking this option, but of course they still have to pay for the NHS as well.
The "money" quote on the present scheme comes from John Hutton the Health Minister: “The joint venture will generate significant cost savings - enough to pay for the annual salaries of 3,000 GPs or 12,000 nurses”. Notice the phrasing, why doesn't he express it in tax terms? He should say, the cost savings will result in a penny decrease in income tax, but of course it won't, and indeed this is why ultimately the move is just irrelevant. It's irrelevant because it won't increase the standard, so desperately needing increase, in patient care, and failing that, it won't result in any money going back to the taxpayer. Instead of the money being wasted on NHS accountants, it'll be wasted on some other turkey.
