[Ip-health] UK Huffpo on McKiney's NHS conflicts

Jamie Love james.love at keionline.org
Mon Mar 26 11:35:04 PDT 2012


>From the Huffpo UK:

*  It is now well-established that global consultancy McKinsey&Co have
been intimately involved in Lansley's plan to mangle the NHS. A Daily
Mail investigation released last month made a number of significant
allegations against the global uber-consultancy that is widely known
as 'The Firm'.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-ritter/mckinsey-believe-it-or-not_b_1358485.html

EDITION: UK

McKinsey's Believe it or Not
David RitterCommentator, academic and campaigner

Posted: 22/03/2012

Amidst the general dismay among real experts and ordinary people alike
that has followed the parliamentary passage of Andrew Lansley's
vicious legislation to traduce the NHS, there is one vested interest
that will no doubt give a quiet cheer.

It is now well-established that global consultancy McKinsey&Co have
been intimately involved in Lansley's plan to mangle the NHS. A Daily
Mail investigation released last month made a number of significant
allegations against the global uber-consultancy that is widely known
as 'The Firm'.

McKinsey make lots of virtuous statements on their oh-so-slick website
including the following:

"We are a values-driven organization. For us this means to always...
•	Keep our client information confidential
We don't reveal sensitive information. We don't promote our own good
work. We focus on making our clients successful."

But the Daily Mail asks:

"McKinsey's close ties to the Bill could prove invaluable for its
private health clients. So has the firm been exploiting its privileged
access? An email from an unnamed McKinsey executive from May 2010,
suggests it has. ... The emails also show that McKinsey has been keen
to tout the Bill's money-making opportunities to foreign firms."

Intriguing. According to the Mail, McKinsey spokesman John Cheetham
repeatedly refused to comment on any aspect of the firm's involvement
in work on the NHS, responding to the allegations by saying "[we] just
don't talk about our client work...[what] we do for them is
confidential."

The no comment was to be expected. The obsessive - if selective -
secrecy of McKinsey is well known. In McKinsey's London office -
located conveniently near to the Ripley's Believe it or Not museum -
I've seen with my own eyes the shredders on corridor corners, and sat
in a meeting room with a note on the wall that promised the
destruction of every piece of paper unwittingly left behind.

The insider role of McKinsey in Lansley's attack on the NHS follows
exposure of the consultancy's allegedly dodgy health care advice in
the US last year. It was none other than Nobel laureate economist Paul
Krugmann who led the attack on McKinsey's work. The McKinsey report in
question was later described by one senior US legislator as:

"... filled with cherry-picked facts and slanted questions ... It did
not provide employers with enough information for them to make honest
choices and fair evaluations."

Back in 2009 - when McKinsey was urging that one in every ten NHS
employees be sacked - veteran Guardian writer Michael White asked
jokingly:

"Poor old McKinsey, how long can it last now that it has invoked the
Curse of Nye Bevan? ... I envisage an outbreak of hospital-inquired
infection sweeping through its 94 offices in 52 countries, a
mysterious fire gutting its London HQ in Jermyn Street, its senior
executives caught in compromising positions with choirboys and
bankers."

Perhaps White was on to something because since that time, public
relations debacles associated with McKinsey - of which the most
damaging is undoubtedly the insider trading scandal centring on Rajat
Gupta, who ran McKinsey from 1994 to 2003 and remained a senior
partner until 2007, and another ex-McKinsey partner, Anil Kumar - have
come with alarming regularity. None of it is good for a commercial
operation which trades, above all, on the myth of its reputation.

And there lies the paradox of McKinsey's role in Lansley's NHS
legislation. McKinseyites might be cheering the passage of the
legislation, but if the adverse press coverage in the Daily Mail is
any guide, the reputation of The Firm has been damaged in the process.


Follow David Ritter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/David_Ritter



-- 
James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
http://www.keionline.org, +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040,
Geneva Mobile: +41.76.413.6584, efax: +1.888.245.3140.  Sometimes I am
using my MaxRoam number: +447937390810
twitter.com/jamie_love




More information about the Ip-health mailing list