NHS issues with 'rip off' agencies and expensive agency workers

[northernladuk]

It was mentioned ad infinitum on Friday when the news of the NHS's deficit came out. Numbers like 30% of the deficit is down to agency workers were being banded about with counter claims to this and so on....

But either way... Anyone wondering if this might have some impact on the new legislation hitting us. If the Govt have a desire to clamp down on these people costing the NHS will that feed the desire to push the legislation through?

Admittedly none of these should actually affect the cost to the client directly it could push more of the agency works permanent and fill the roles?

... or just a red herring?

[gables]

The bit I picked up on was the 'bank' nurses costing a lot, to reduce that they just need to make more permanent nursing jobs available, probably along with a better pay, because surely a main reason to use 'bank' nurses is because there aren't enough permies due to cost cutting?

[TykeMerc]

I'm not surprised that they didn't even mention that even though the headline of "NHS in worst financial straits for a generation" has a lovely ring, a generation ago (25 years) the NHS didn't have a whole array of Trusts, each with their expensive corporate management structures.
I'd be very interested to see credible audited figures that compared the budget spend on management and actual healthcare core services.

It's no mystery that headcount poker has been played by the Trusts for years with medical staff, especially Nurses taken off the books and hired via agencies, not exactly a shock that the cost reality rather than the accountants book-keepers trickery has bitten.

I doubt that the NHS accountancy farce will have any real bearing on the changes we're concerned about, but that could always change.

[LondonManc]

It was mentioned ad infinitum on Friday when the news of the NHS's deficit came out. Numbers like 30% of the deficit is down to agency workers were being banded about with counter claims to this and so on....

But either way... Anyone wondering if this might have some impact on the new legislation hitting us. If the Govt have a desire to clamp down on these people costing the NHS will that feed the desire to push the legislation through?

Admittedly none of these should actually affect the cost to the client directly it could push more of the agency works permanent and fill the roles?

... or just a red herring?

Red herring / convenient excuse. Could be either or both.

The fact that the NHS want to pay 5/7 max of "normal" day rate is an indication of the quality of contractors who will work for them.

I was contacted about a role in Yorkshire. Had a chat, initially seemed about 45 minutes drive - totally acceptable. Turned out it was out the far end of the place they claimed but I told him my rate; £100pd more than he had quoted. He said he'd put me forward anyway to see what the client thought and he did. I got contacted and got an interview. Interview went well enough, got a call the following day along the lines of:
"What's your day rate again?" "£xxx"
"What's the lowest you'd take?" "£xxx"
Now, if they're looking at paying £xxx - 100 then they aren't going to get the calibre of person that they need to do the job. As Red Adair said, if you think professionals are expensive, wait until you hire an amateur, which is the problem that the NHS face.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Red herring definitely. They need the number of staff that they need - agency workers will attract costs that permies don't and vice versa - the only real cost comparison would be average annual spend per head year on year

[Danglekt]

very convenient side step of the issues.

[northernladuk]

Red herring / convenient excuse. Could be either or both.

The fact that the NHS want to pay 5/7 max of "normal" day rate is an indication of the quality of contractors who will work for them.

I was contacted about a role in Yorkshire. Had a chat, initially seemed about 45 minutes drive - totally acceptable. Turned out it was out the far end of the place they claimed but I told him my rate; £100pd more than he had quoted. He said he'd put me forward anyway to see what the client thought and he did. I got contacted and got an interview. Interview went well enough, got a call the following day along the lines of:
"What's your day rate again?" "£xxx"
"What's the lowest you'd take?" "£xxx"
Now, if they're looking at paying £xxx - 100 then they aren't going to get the calibre of person that they need to do the job. As Red Adair said, if you think professionals are expensive, wait until you hire an amateur, which is the problem that the NHS face.

I think they were talking about frontline staff and agency nurses not the IT lot.

[Danglekt]

they threw in a line about "rip off consultancies" too.

Again, complete red herring.

[LondonManc]

I think they were talking about frontline staff and agency nurses not the IT lot.

Are you sure? "Rip off agencies"?

[Zero Liability]

Red herring definitely. They need the number of staff that they need - agency workers will attract costs that permies don't and vice versa - the only real cost comparison would be average annual spend per head year on year

It's part and parcel of this whole "demonise the rich" class warfare thing that even outfits like The Telegraph are now engaged in, i.e. shallow attempts to drum up hostility towards those helping to cope with the long term planning/budgeting issues plaguing the NHS, because it "offends" the authors' delicate journalistic sensibilities and likely those of their intended audiences too.