howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Wasteful health chiefs have been paying almost £50 for a £2 packet of pasta, it has emerged.
While many shoppers have been watching every penny they spend, it would appear some health service bosses have been acting far less frugally with taxpayer cash.
Now one NHS Trust has finally come to its senses and is getting patients to buy the packets in supermarkets for £2.
Everyone who previously had gluten-free pasta on prescription from the Eastern and Coastal Kent NHS Trust has now been advised to buy it themselves.
'A £2 packet of pasta from a supermarket could cost the NHS up to £47,' said Alison Issott, assistant director of medicines management at the Trust.
She added: 'It will cost £5 from the manufacturer, plus a £1 dispensing fee, £1 pharmacy fee and a delivery charge up to £40.
'Manufacturers and wholesalers can charge the NHS significantly more for gluten-free products than when bought directly in a supermarket.
'As a wide range of gluten-free products are now available in the supermarkets, which was not previously the case, it is felt reasonable and fair to expect people to buy some of their own foods, as we do not pay for food for patients with other long-term ailments.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Common sense reigns at last.
I wonder how many other things are a waste of our money.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
amazing... Yes, Jan I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. Private businesses would not fall into such traps so why on earth do public bodies.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i have maintained for some considerable time that the weakest point of the n.h.s is the buying in.
they need people with proven track records in sourcing goods to be brought in.
my own view is that a centralised department should buy in for the entire health service, the purchasing power would be phenomenal.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
I wonder how much could be saved if ex-supermarket or shop buyers/managers were employed. They certainly know how to get items at the lowest price.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Centralised buying can bring its own evils. In one of the places I work which is a public sector organisation it would be cheaper and much, much easier to pop to Argos or a local retailer to buy, say, a bit of cabling or some electric plugs, but they have to order centrally, wait for weeks, and pay double the odds.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
can be a double edged sword, hopefully it would be people from the private sector who would be used to putting pressure on suppliers that would be brought in.
i doubt that the top buyers at poundlands have to wait for anything, when they say jump the suppliers ask how high?
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
barryw
believe me private companies do fall in the same trap(some of them)
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
people in private companies that fall short get the order of the boot.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
Another example of the private sector ripping the public off.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
Just imagine if they were not only providing the pasta but the 'NHS' care itself. You'd have to rich to afford it.
Although I know and object to the extent of the waste in the NHS this is a slight misrepresntation of the facts , Gluten free products have been avaliable for many years via prescription for those with coeliac disease , with the rise in Health food shops and the greater range of products avaliable on the " every day " market . A central decision has been made to remove the ability for these to be prescribed , e ECK PCT have just acted on a central directive . The difference in the cost and avaliability has driven the review of products avaliable and thier removal from the prescription tarrif. The whole of the prescription charge sysytem is currently under review and hopefully will lead to reduced costs , The other thing that will need to be kept in mind is that as income reduces for any buisness ie the supplier , then the costs of other products may have to rise to ensure that they remain profitable
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
cuts both ways darren, if the public sector employs below standard staff expect them to be ripped off.
business is business.
it is up to the n.h.s(in this case) to head hunt people that can save them money.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
posted at the same time sarah, we would be interested to hear any inside views.
LOL Howard , the whole buying process needs root and branch reform ( much like the NHS in my opinion ) it is so complex it is almost infathomable , Companies have to proove so much to central agenciers before they can even be assesed as a providor that it will exclude smaller , sharper set ups
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No DT1 - the fault lays with the buyer - you cannot blame anyone for selling their goods for as much as someone is willing to pay. If any organisation is so inefficient they pay £50 for something they could get for £2 then thats down to them.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
sarah
i had to work in the public sector for a year back in the nineties and was astonished by the naivete of those therein.
it was a closeted world where the name of the game was to protect the status quo.
you are right about companies having to jump through hoops to just get on the list of having a chance to tender.
in those days they had to get bs 5750 status(whatever that is) and an i.s.o. rating.
small well run companies would not have had the time or inclination to register.
The thought of it still brings back nightmares Howard , I sometimes thought I was trapped in a novel by Kafka
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
I am sorry, I only wrote that because it made me laugh.
I totally agree with everyone here, the inefficiencies are unacceptable.
But then; surely we should be charging private suppliers of health care for the NHS trained staff they use. As tax payers we should be charging these private companies as much as we can and use this money to reduce the labour/worldwide (delete as appropriate) deficit. Hopefully the private health care suppliers can prove their efficiency by training all their own staff, or alternatively bring them in from abroad which will solve our unemployment problem.
I think I understand your viewpoint DT1, but especially for nurses now they are not paid by the NHS while they train they get a bursary from the government ( unlike when I trained when I ws paid by the NHS ) so it would be like charging a private company for employing a graduate who could choose to work for a government agency . Some training for student nurses is now undertaken in private companies and the non NHS staff train the students and use thier resources to support them , without payment from the University who are being paid to provide the course . ( sorry thats such a long explaination ) it would be nigh on impossible to seperate out and cross charge each body that inputs into the training of each nurse .