Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As I said before MM I have no issue with hospitals raising funds through charity. It is just the specific targeting of recent patients in this case. Aside from my slightly emotional reservations you have to think is this really the best group of people to approach for financial support? The fact that letter recipients were recent patients suggests that they may not be in the greatest of health. They may be out of work. It's also likely that a fair few will be elderly. Any of these doesn't put you in the best position to be able to donate large sums of cash. I'd be interested to know what the response rate from the letter send out was or whether the charity's fundraising would be better directed elsewhere.

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just a point of historical fact. Hospitals in this

> country have, for the vast part of their

> existence, relied upon charity and voluntary

> support. Barts was established in the 13th century

> as a religious charitable institution, many other

> similar hospitals followed in subsequent

> centuries. The biggest nationalisation ever was

> the "creation" of the NHS which took over

> previously charitable and municipal funded

> establishments in 1948.

>

> So for just over 60 years we've had a tax funded

> (NOT government funded) health service against

> several hundred years of charity funding.


The fact that hospitals were run as charities for a large part of their history is not really that relevant. A tax funded, universal health care system has to be preferable to one that relies on philantrophy.


I am surprised that so many are OK with King's approaching recently treated patients for money (assuming that this is what is happening, as portrayed in this thread).

A tax funded, universal health care system has to be preferable to one that relies on philantrophy.


RahRah - why is this so? I gave you some facts - you have made an assertion but given no reasons.


A charity based hospital could be locally funded (charity / local taxes / municipal [aka council] support / local fund raising events / philanthropic gifts etc), locally controlled, supported by the community it serves and reflect the needs and desires of its users.


That's broadly how things used to be - and still are in some countries - Canada for one, where up to 50% of local hospital funding in some states is raised locally thru' dedicated fund raising professionals. If the sums raised are, relatively, limited they may be spent more wisely than block grants from central government.

if you back up a bit there is a comment asking why the staff at kings don't take a cut back if things are that tight - this came to mind on Saturday as I listened to patrick Kielty on radio 2 talking about an Elvis event that the station had run in hyde park the previous weekend. He was trying to say how good a job they had done of organising the day & to do that mentioned his free ticket & how good the food was backstage. Apparently Freddie Flintoff's mother was there with Freddie taking pic's of her with famous people. It is impossible for me to estimate how much of the taxpayers money was wasted feeding the rich & famous deep fried bananas.........


leave NHS bosses wages alone - they are at least trying to improve to make it work...... it's time the BBC made proper cutbacks & reduced the obscene wages of DJ's & presenters.......surely stopping this sort of expenditure & redirecting the lienence payers money to the NHS would solve a this nonsense! Imagine how many more nurses could be employed for the price of Patrick Keilty's salary!!!

Godwin's Law takes something of a back seat when sofaRunner can so elegantly turn an argument about hospital charity into a spot of bashing the beeb.


This one is worthy of the Daily Mail: "redirecting the lienence payers money to the NHS would solve a this nonsense"


It's so cretinous it's spectacular. I can't even be bothered to respond intelligently.


Cretinism, incidentally, is treatable on the NHS. Before sofaRunner's appearance on this forum it had largely been eradicated in the developed world.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Cretinism, incidentally, is treatable on the NHS.

> Before sofaRunner's appearance on this forum it

> had largely been eradicated in the developed

> world.



seems a bit harsh *sob*.


admittedly it was a Mail-ism & somewhat tenuous but read through the thread itself & whilst it started off well it really has some truely absurd moments....... mine is only a drop in the crazy ocean

@jollybaby


"I'd be interested to know what the response rate from the letter send out was..."


Jane Ferguson, the Director of Fundraising mentioned in a post a few pages back that she had received thousands of letters of support following the etter going out...Probabaly safe to assume that most those people wanted to know more, which was the point of the letter in the first place, that is probabaly as near to an answer as you are going to get.


Sounds like a successful approach to me.

Its always worth a try. Lots of people who have been in hospital.feel they would like to give something back,even a little box of chocolates to say thanks to a nurse or even the smiling ladies on the tea trolleys. Some have even given t.vs for the day rooms, So some people wouldnt mind making donations.

illogical concern for the intangible "feelings" of a few


We are talking about vulnerable people, who may well be more vulnerable than usual because they are recovering from recent treatment.


OH MY GOD THEY HAVEN'T ASKED FOR MONEY.


No but the intention is clear. Why else would they send a letter 'informing' RECENT PATIENTS of the fundraising efforts of Kings? It is clearly done in the belief that recent patients might be more likely to donate or fund raise as they have recently received treatment. It's premeditated to have a desired effect.


Not one person on this thread has so far commented on my suggestion of giving patients a box to tick if they don't want to receive associated mail (an opt out option). It is by far to the most sensible solution to safeguard from any complaint.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not one person on this thread has so far commented

> on my suggestion of giving patients a box to tick

> if they don't want to receive associated mail (an

> opt out option). It is by far to the most sensible

> solution to safeguard from any complaint.


DJKQ, the whole letter is intended as an 'opt in' which is a more robust and discreet approach than any opt out, which can be ticked by accident or absent-mindedly, as many marketing companies know very well. The implication of the King's letter is that if you don't respond, or you respond no then they will not contact you again.

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A tax funded, universal health care system has to

> be preferable to one that relies on philantrophy.

>

>

> RahRah - why is this so? I gave you some facts -

> you have made an assertion but given no reasons.


I gave my opinion, which is kind of the point of a forum. A hospital that is run on charitable donations is one that will find it very hard to plan, will be even more constrained by the whims of fashionable causes and will have to direct huge amounts of resource courting wealthy, potential donors. I find it very hard to believe that you would truelly like to see hospitals dependent on donations.


The fact that hospitals were run on this basis for a long time, may be a fact, but isn't that relevant. It doesn't prove that the model is superior (in fact it suggests progress).

Again, it was made quite clear about 7 pages back by King's Director of Fundraising that the Trust and Charity are two financially separate organisations, there has been nosuggestiom that I can see that the hospital is going to be run on charitable donations...you may be going a little over the top with your dystopian vision there.
No one is suggesting that King's is going to be run on charitable donations. Marmora Man has pointed out that such a model of health care did exist in the past and (at least as I read his comments), seems to suggest that it is a feasible model for health care for the present. I disagree.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...