Private sector wants public to foot the bill (again)

shortchanged_2

pqrdef wrote: »

The insurance would be unaffordable. There is only one way the private sector can operate (sorry) in this kind of business. The state has to set up a regulatory system to licence the products. Then the private sector can say it's discharged its legal obligations in full by complying, and if the product is duff anyway, the risk lies with the regulator, i.e. the state.

This is the kind of support the state has to provide before the private sector can function.

Then the private sector will complain about the cost of compliance with regulations. But the alternative wouldn't be cheaper - not unless they think the alternative is for the clinic to be absolved of all responsibility for its work, so that all the risk is borne by the customer.

So the question is, did the UK government (or approriate body) give the all clear to use these implants?

I suspect they did if some were used in NHS operations.
In which case I suppose ultimate liability is with whoever said they were safe to use in the first place.
As much as it riles me that private health providers appear to be trying to worm their way out of it, if they were told these implants were safe to use then it probably negates their liability some what.

However if the UK government did not expressly give the OK for these implants then I fail to see why the UK taxpayer should foot the bill to sort this mess out.

StevieJ

Is this what they mean when they say, 'privatise the gains and socialise the losses'

ILW

StevieJ wrote: »

Is this what they mean when they say, 'privatise the gains and socialise the losses'

If it is agreed - yes.

It should be thrown back to the private companies to sort out their own mess.

silvercar

If you had a pacemaker fitted years ago with private health insurance and then the pacemaker failed, would it be right for the NHS to refuse to replace it?

mcfisco

I've no issue with the NHS removing the implants and [if poss] recovering the costs from the clinics

I do - however - have an issue with them replacing them for new ones

Graham_Devon

Is this not a case where those of us involved in the public sector could say to our private sector co employees...

"We don't want to be paying for your profits"

Kennyboy66

silvercar wrote: »

If you had a pacemaker fitted years ago with private health insurance and then the pacemaker failed, would it be right for the NHS to refuse to replace it?

No it wouldn't be right but if it failed because of poor workmanship or it was a sub standard piece of kit, why wouldn't the private centre be obligated to put it right ?

It is utterly shameful that the private sector is trying to pass the buck back on to the NHS but sadly typical when cosmetic clinics run competetions on local radio (Liverpool naturally) entitled "win boobies like Britney".

ILW

silvercar wrote: »

If you had a pacemaker fitted years ago with private health insurance and then the pacemaker failed, would it be right for the NHS to refuse to replace it?

Possibly if you had not had the pacemeker fitted for any medical reason, but just liked the look of it.

chewmylegoff

pqrdef wrote: »

The insurance would be unaffordable. There is only one way the private sector can operate (sorry) in this kind of business. The state has to set up a regulatory system to licence the products. Then the private sector can say it's discharged its legal obligations in full by complying, and if the product is duff anyway, the risk lies with the regulator, i.e. the state.

This is the kind of support the state has to provide before the private sector can function.

Then the private sector will complain about the cost of compliance with regulations. But the alternative wouldn't be cheaper - not unless they think the alternative is for the clinic to be absolved of all responsibility for its work, so that all the risk is borne by the customer.

Not sure what you're on about to be honest. There will already be insurance in place, so anyone wanting their implants removed should just issue legal proceedings against whoever put them in. They can all band together in what the yanks like to call a class action, I'm sure someone will do it on a no win no few basis. If there is a valid case the insurance will pay out long before it gets anywhere near a court, and if there isn't a valid case then I don't see why the govt should pay instead.

ESKIMO

chewmylegoff wrote: »

isn't this situation exactly what public indemnity insurance is for?

? Did you mean Public Liability Insurance?

shortchanged wrote: »

So the question is, did the UK Government (or approriate body) give the all clear to use these implants?

To an extent yes. I think that this is more of one of those; 'plausable denyability' cases.

To my knowledge (not a clinician) there is some sort of 'Medical Health Authority' that basically 'regulates' equipment used for medical procedures, like a standardisation for surgical implements such as scalpals, swabs, plasters and stitches etc. So that they are of and to a certain and specific criteria/standard - so they wont break or fall apart when you want to cut someone open (so to speak).

The implants would have been tried and tested for their intended purpose/use.