Bromsgrove based cosmetic surgery provider The Hospital Group, has announced the acquisition of Manchester based cosmetic surgery clinic, SurgiCare, after it bought the company out of administration.

The move secures The Hospital Group as the number one cosmetic surgery provider in Europe, with a network of 27 clinics situated across the UK and Ireland plus over 10 in Spain.  The Group also expanded into the USA in 2009 with a base in Los Angeles.

Choosing to retain the SurgiCare brand independently, The Hospital Group and SurgiCare will tackle different areas of the market to gain a complimentary business strategy.

The deal has secured the jobs of 37 workers and follows the group’s recent acquisition of NU Age medical Spa in Newcastle Upon Tyne.

David Ross, Chief Executive at The Hospital Group, said: “This business deal shows the company’s commitment to consolidating and building our position in the UK and international market."

The OFT plans to launch a market study into private healthcare. The study will examine the nature of competition in the market, and whether the market is fully competitive. Ahead of the formal launch in Spring 2011, the OFT is seeking views on the proposed scope of the study.

The private healthcare market is of growing importance due to an ageing population, improved medical outcomes and higher life expectancy. It is also important to the NHS as a result of ongoing government initiatives that allow NHS patients to seek treatment from private healthcare providers in certain circumstances. The NHS currently accounts for almost one quarter of revenues paid to private healthcare providers.

The OFT proposes to explore four possible areas of concern:

·         The level of concentration amongst providers of private healthcare at the national, regional and local levels, and whether this limits the extent of competition in the market

·         The existence of any barriers preventing private healthcare providers from entering or expanding in the market

·         The existence of any restrictions on the ability of consultants and other medical professionals to practice

·         How consumers access and assess information, and how they exercise choice in the provision of private healthcare.

Sonya Branch of OFT says, “We are keen to establish whether patients and buyers of private healthcare services, including the NHS, are getting the full benefit of choice and competition. As this is a complex area, we want to engage with providers, patients and government first to ensure that we identify and focus on the correct issues prior to launching the market study in 2011.”

Leading corporate healthcare trust provider Healix has increased its spending with private hospitals and other private medical service providers in the UK to more than double in the last year. 

As an increasing number of employers hit by the recession choose to cut costs on their corporate healthcare schemes by self-insuring through Healix healthcare trusts, the company has established mutually beneficial relationships with a growing number of private hospitals. It is now mounting an awareness campaign to extend its network, providing valuable commercial opportunities for these organizations.

The aim of Healix’s new awareness campaign in the private medical sector is to improve understanding of the opportunities its healthcare trust proposition provides to private hospitals and other private medical service providers. Healthcare trusts allow employers to save money on the cost of traditional private medical insurance plans by self-funding their corporate healthcare schemes through an umbrella trust.

Waiting times for hospital treatment have reached their highest level for three years as the NHS spending squeeze begins to bite, according to a new quarterly monitoring report published by The King’s Fund.

 The new report – the first of a regular update that will be published by the Fund every quarter – provides a snapshot of the state of the NHS.

 Among the key findings:

 In February 2011, 15 % of hospital inpatients waited over 18 weeks for treatment – the highest level since April 2008

·         The proportion of patients waiting more than six weeks for diagnostic services fell back in February, reversing a steady increase since June 2010

·         Levels of hospital-acquired infections have fallen to their lowest level in recent years, while delays in transferring patients out of hospital remain stable.  

Professor John Appleby at The King’s Fund says, ‘This report will provide a regular health check on the state of the NHS as it comes to terms with the new financial climate and implements the government’s reforms. It highlights significant concern among NHS finance directors – who are well placed to report on the stresses in the system – about the prospects for the year ahead. With hospital waiting times rising, the NHS faces a considerable challenge in maintaining performance as the financial squeeze begins to bite.’ 

The Labour government set a target that 90 % of patients should be treated within 18 weeks of referral to hospital from their GP. In June 2010, the current government announced that performance management of this target would cease as part of its drive to end many targets. The right to hospital treatment within 18 weeks is enshrined within the NHS Constitution.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

To give businesses even greater flexibility and choice, Bupa has recently introduced a number of new options to Bupa Select private medical insurance scheme including a rolling moratorium on underwriting for both new and renewing business.

 And there is a new option of a six-week scheme that offers up to a 20% saving on standard rates

 The six-week scheme excludes any day case or in-patient treatment available on the NHS within six weeks of a consultant referral. Access to diagnostics and initial consultations is unaffected.

BMA research suggests that consultants’ income from private practice is declining. The study also reveals that private medical insurers are having greater influence over what consultants charge for their services.

So why are the Insurance companies within their rights to dictate the rate for consultant’s fees?  The shortfalls on consultancy fees is common place – such as charging over a set rate laid down by the relative PMI or a time limit for billing.

Here’s a response from Dr Simon Peck, head of investigations and medical advice at AXA PPP Healthcare, a PMI provider:

“As health insurers, we do of course have an essential role to play in helping to contain the cost of doctors’ charges.

We try to pay as many fees in full as we can but we have to balance this with keeping our policies affordable, which can be challenging for an insurance-based system because, at the point of treatment, individual policyholders generally do not seek value for money in the way in which they would if they were paying for this themselves.

Indeed, the (then) Monopoly and Mergers Commission recognised the importance of this issue in its 1994 report Private medical services: a report on agreements and practices relating to charges for the supply of private medical services by NHS consultants, the overview to which states:

‘Consultants enjoy a strong position in the private medical services market. The patient seeking PMS (private medical services) is vulnerable. He is usually insured and so is not greatly interested in prices.

‘It is therefore unsurprising that we have seen no evidence of significant pressure on consultants’ charges exerted by either the patient or the GP in his role as gatekeeper, and virtually no evidence of price competition between consultants. In this situation the countervailing power of the insurers is of crucial importance.’

Our fixed fee schedules are also important for customers as they balance offering a fair remuneration for doctors with ensuring that customers do not run the risk of having a personal shortfall.

Patients cannot reasonably be expected to discuss fees on an equal footing with someone about to treat them and they do not have the knowledge of what is and is not reasonable. We do, and that is why these schedules are an important part of our customer proposition.

Our hospital network policies are an example of our offering customers more choice - not less. Customers, if they wish, can choose a policy that enables them to be treated in any medical facility in UK.

In practice, most elect for the network option for which they pay a lower premium.”

Challenge to open referrals in private practice

(taken from www.hospitaldr.co.uk)

It is not as if PMI has been booming in the last decade, so what on this planet makes insurers behave in such a long-term self-destructive way? And why were the internal marketing and advertising experts unable to explain to the medical, underwriting and financial people the dangers of this approach when the NHS is offering free choice?   If the key marketing message of PMI is to emphasise individual choice, then you actually have to deliver that in the perception and reality of the product.  (taken from www.privatehealth.co.uk)

Hospital group BMI Healthcare continues negotiations with Bupa in wake of de-listing.

BMI claims Bupa’s price comparison is unfair and adds: “Bupa members, their families and friends, may have to travel further to alternative hospitals and may not be able to continue their care with their own consultant.

A spokesperson for BMI Healthcare said: “We continue to seek a long-term relationship with Bupa and are working extremely hard to ensure that any disruption to patients is kept to a minimum. “Bupa members currently receiving treatment or whose treatment or investigations have been ‘pre-authorised’ by Bupa prior to December 31, 2011, will still be able to complete that treatment even if the hospital is not recognised now.

“Clearly, we do not have sight of other hospitals’ prices, but we know that at least one other national hospital group with charitable status enjoys significant tax advantages, including VAT exemption. This is not comparing ‘like with like’ and this tax status will drive a significant proportion of the price differential that exists. We think that such a comparison is therefore unhelpful.”

He also advised Bupa members who are mid-treatment at any of the hospitals removed will not be affected in any way and we will settle all invoices as usual.  They will also be able to continue their treatment at the hospital, even if their current treatment and follow-up are ongoing,  and are continuing to include 27 BMI hospitals where they consider the inconvenience to their members of their removal too great, given current alternatives.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the two institutions commercial points of view, policyholders and patients may well feel they will be the first casualties in this war of words. While the National Health Service has come in for sharp criticism recently, this row demonstrates the risks of the alternative; where financial considerations determine when and where care is received. No wonder cynics claim medical insurers of all descriptions are in business to lend out umbrellas – until it starts to rain.

Up to 50% private patients in English NHS hospitals

NHS hospitals in England will be free to use almost half their hospital beds and theatre time for private patients under government plans.

A recent revision to the ongoing health bill will allow foundation hospitals to raise 49% of funds through non-NHS work if the bill gets through Parliament.

Most foundation trusts are now limited to a private income of about 2%.  The health secretary says the move will benefit NHS patients but Labour claimed it could lead to longer waiting lists.