Jarndyce Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 (edited) 10 hours ago, Gladys said: Is that right, or is the team going into DHSC to review the governance structure of the DHSC? Is the transformation programme intended to cover all IOMG departments in due course - or was it set up to “transform” DHSC/MC only, in response to the Michaels Report? Edited March 13 by Jarndyce Typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 3 minutes ago, Jarndyce said: Is the transformation programme intended to cover all IOMG departments in due course - or was it set up to “transform” DHSC/MC only, in response to the Michaels Report? Gotcha, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 2 hours ago, Gladys said: 2 hours ago, Jarndyce said: Is the transformation programme intended to cover all IOMG departments in due course - or was it set up to “transform” DHSC/MC only, in response to the Michaels Report? Gotcha, thanks You may have misinterpreted my question, Glad - I don’t actually know the answer. I thought maybe @wrighty or @Dr. Grumpy might have been in a position to clarify, so I put the question out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissoltt Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 3 hours ago, Jarndyce said: Is the transformation programme intended to cover all IOMG departments in due course - or was it set up to “transform” DHSC/MC only, in response to the Michaels Report? Has anyone considered that perhaps Jonathan Michaels was wrong? We have gambled the future of our health system on a single report and as a consequence we have a dramatically worsening health service. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 4 minutes ago, cissoltt said: Has anyone considered that perhaps Jonathan Michaels was wrong? Yes: health workers at the sharp end, patients, general public, anyone with any financial nous, etc, etc. Political classes - not so much, they voted it in “on the nod” with nary a question to be asked. After all, the Michaels Report cost so much, it couldn’t possibly be wrong - could it? The fact that the system proposed by Michaels had already been discredited in the UK (too expensive, too much duplication of management function) wasn’t raised by a single MHK - unless anyone knows better? 8 minutes ago, cissoltt said: We have gambled the future of our health system on a single report and as a consequence we have a dramatically worsening health service We (the public) didn’t…THEY (our glorious politicians) did. This has been highlighted in this very thread many, MANY times. 3 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 2 hours ago, Jarndyce said: You may have misinterpreted my question, Glad - I don’t actually know the answer. I thought maybe @wrighty or @Dr. Grumpy might have been in a position to clarify, so I put the question out there. No, you pointed out that the transformation team was an ad hoc team, not a general team. I had missed that, so can see why the move to DHSC. Whether that is wise or not is yet to be seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayhem Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Wonder what the transfomation team delivered within Cabinet Office, I'm not aware of any substantive change programme having been in play? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 It's a totally minor point but it's 'Michael', not 'Michaels'. Right, thanks. Back in my box. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 7 minutes ago, mayhem said: Wonder what the transfomation team delivered within Cabinet Office, I'm not aware of any substantive change programme having been in play? I think it is more to do with management and reporting lines, and budget, rather than actually transforming the Cabinet Office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 12 minutes ago, Gladys said: No, you pointed out that the transformation team was an ad hoc team, not a general team. Well, I’m not sure that was what I intended, since it’s really outside my knowledge - “if it’s not confirmed by three sources, don’t use it”, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 1 minute ago, Jarndyce said: Well, I’m not sure that was what I intended, since it’s really outside my knowledge - “if it’s not confirmed by three sources, don’t use it”, etc. There is a link above to its TORs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
code99 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 (edited) 2 hours ago, Jarndyce said: Yes: health workers at the sharp end, patients, general public, anyone with any financial nous, etc, etc. Political classes - not so much, they voted it in “on the nod” with nary a question to be asked. After all, the Michaels Report cost so much, it couldn’t possibly be wrong - could it? The fact that the system proposed by Michaels had already been discredited in the UK (too expensive, too much duplication of management function) wasn’t raised by a single MHK - unless anyone knows better? We (the public) didn’t…THEY (our glorious politicians) did. This has been highlighted in this very thread many, MANY times. Exactly. Unfortunately, our 'gurus' Cannan, Hooper, Callister, Thomas, Dr Allinson et alia failed to apply their superior professional skills and "financial nous", so they accepted the Michaels Report verbatim without the necessary budget (as per SJM proposal) for Manx Care...and now our politicians want us to pay for their lack of accountability and competence. Edited March 13 by code99 typo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 (edited) 38 minutes ago, quilp said: It's a totally minor point but it's 'Michael', not 'Michaels'. Right, thanks. Back in my box. Never play down the correction of error and the presentation of actual, demonstrable fact! Gotta be done, especially on t’ interweb! Just ask David Byrne - (5’10”): he knows how tricky facts can be… Edited March 13 by Jarndyce 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 We’re paying for Liverpool’s medical director!! https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/medical-director-being-paid-by-manx-care-while-working-in-liverpool/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 27 minutes ago, code99 said: Exactly. Unfortunately, our 'gurus' Cannan, Hooper, Callister, Thomas, Dr Allinson et alia failed to apply their superior professional skills and "financial nous", so they accepted the Michaels Report verbatim without the necessary budget (as per SJM proposal) for Manx Care...and now our politicians want us to pay for their lack of accountability and competence. There is no magic money tree to quote a famous philosopher Politicians can't just give health complete free rein, it could easily swallow half the entire budget and still not be enough. There's a name for it - Baumol's cost disease. Hiking taxes and drastically cutting investment to pay for health and CS salaries is not a sustainable long term solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.