Private hospitals bucked the recession in 2009 – but only by massively expanding the amount of work they carry out for the National Health Service, according to the analysts Laing and Buisson.Overall, revenue rose by 7.5 per cent to £3.76bn. But patients treated under private medical insurance fell by 30,000 between 2007 and 2009 as the recession hit. The numbers paying out of their own pocket dropped further – down by almost 45,000.

However, work for NHS patients, who now have the right to go to any private hospital willing to treat them at the NHS price for waiting-list type treatments, rocketed.

Their numbers almost quadrupled between 2007 and 2009, up from 55,900 to 212,000, so that NHS patients made up almost 22 per cent of private hospital cases, up from 6.3 per cent in 2007.

The result was a rise in independent hospital activity, with about 975,000 patients treated, against 888,000 in 2007.

Some NHS patients are sent by NHS hospitals to keep waiting times down.

But the numbers exercising their right to choose are rising sharply – running at a rate of 200,000 procedures a year in July this year, according to Laing’s Healthcare Market Review, the bible on private sector activity. That is business worth £400m a year.

William Laing of the review said senior health department officials believe patient choice activity in the private sector could triple. His own estimate is that it might ultimately rise five fold to about £2bn a year – although that would still be less than 20 per cent of NHS waiting list activity.

“Expanding the services they provide for the NHS has obvious attractions for independent hospitals because the publicly paid market is massively greater than the traditional private healthcare market.

“But it has great dangers as well, since too much focus on publicly paid patients could compromise their appeal to traditional, privately paying customers. There is a conflict which independent hospital providers have not yet fully resolved.”

If the independent sector seriously wanted to address the potentially huge public market, he said, it would “have to grow a lot more capacity”.

That could come from a mix of the existing players and new hospital providers entering the market with lower cost business models that generate reasonable profits from the prices that the NHS is prepared to pay.

The figures came on the day the Office of Fair Trading launched a wide ranging review into the private healthcare market – among other issues examining the barrier to new entrants joining it.

From: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/675afcb4-07b7-11e0-a568-00144feabdc0,s01=1.html#axzz18ALgaS00

An investigation into how well the private healthcare market is working is being planned by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).
It will examine the nature of competition in the market, as well as whether it is fully competitive.

The OFT said its preliminary research had raised questions about whether the market was working well for private patients.

It aims to formally launch its investigation in spring next year.

Meantime, it is seeking views on the proposed scope of the study.

The OFT says the private healthcare market is worth £5.5bn and is of growing importance due to an ageing population, improved medical outcomes and higher life expectancy.

It added that it was of growing importance to the NHS because of government initiatives that allow NHS patients to seek treatment from private healthcare providers in certain circumstances.

Sonya Branch, OFT senior director of services and public markets said: “We are keen to focus on whether patients and buyers of private healthcare, including the NHS, are getting the full benefit of choice and competition.”

She added that as the area was a complex one, the OFT would be speaking to providers, patients and government to make sure that it focussed on the correct issues.

Hundreds of cancer patients may have been left to die without access to life prolonging medication, despite the drugs being approved by the labour government.

A postcode lottery means hundreds of people are missing out on life-prolonging care

Now figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that a cancer patient’s chances of overruling health authorities who deny them access to drugs depends on where they live.

Some NHS trusts, such as Torbay in Devon and Salford in Manchester, granted all appeals while in others, such as Kingston in southwest London, only 7% were granted. In about one-third of trusts, fewer than half of the requests for drugs that can cost thousands of pounds a month were approved.

Access to cancer drugs has become an election issue, with the Conservatives saying they will ensure the National Health Service directs £200m more into supplying new drugs. The money will come from what the health service would otherwise have had to pay to meet Labour’s hike in National Insurance, which the Tories have said they would partially reverse.

The drugs concerned have all been approved by the labour government’s National Institute for Curbing Expenditure (Nice). However, each of 152 primary care trusts (PCTs) in England is allowed to use its own interpretation of Nice’s regulations.

In some cases patients who have already had two courses of chemotherapy are not allowed the drugs; in other cases they must have tried cheaper alternatives before being eligible. Those who do not meet the conditions must appeal to an “exceptional case” panel.

Widespread variation in attitudes between health trusts emerged in research to be published in Health Insurance magazine. It asked how many “exceptional-case funding requests” for cancer were received by trusts in 2009.

It named five drugs, including Rituxan for leukaemia; Tarceva for lung cancer treatment and Revamid for blood cancer.

All such appeals were granted by 17 healthcare trusts, with the areas benefiting ranging from Walsall and Manchester, to Torbay and Suffolk. However, Kingston and Northamptonshire refused most of the appeals made to them.

Forty one of 122 primary care trusts that responded granted fewer than half requests. The figures present an incomplete picture because some trusts may prescribe medicines without the need for patients to appeal. Critics, however, say they still show unacceptably wide variations in practice.

Specialists also complain that the NHS trust officials who decide whether or not to grant the appeals are rarely experts in the disease, so they help to create the wide discrepancies.

Karol Sikora, a cancer specialist at Hammersmith hospital, west London, said his department has a wallchart that marks both sympathetic and unhelpful PCTs. “You find yourself talking to office temps and all sorts of unlikely people who are apparently making these life-or-death decisions,” said Sikora.