The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Should we be centralizing buying of foodstuffs so we are not putting suppliers in competition? Should we be dealing with a couple of very big industrial suppliers? Will patients eat better food as a result?
Just a few questions there, I'm not saying I have all the answers. As to Gumbel's article, it's such a high-flown example of meretricious spin and bullshit that it deserves... Well, sometimes I wish I had the paper version, if you see what I mean...
Although I do not object at all to competition in food suppliers, 29 different suppliers is in my book overdoing it - even for 38 hospitals. Except in those cases where the supply companies are mostly small-scale, delivering locally procuded foodware, which I doubt somewhat. Cutting costs by centralising food supply doesn't need to be wrong per se. When it can be done properly, without loss of quality and frees up money which can be invested in better healthcare or personal - I'm all for it.
Now a question back: To your knowledge, is there such a thing as a large food supplier working with biologically produced, local farms and delivering products of those farms to (local) customers located around those farms?
My point wasn't to say that, from the outside and without the actual data, we could know what the optimal buying policy should be. It was to say the point was thrown at us like powder in the eyes, as the French say. Does Gumbel actually show that 29 suppliers was significantly costing more money? No. He's just insinuating. Oh, there were 208 blood labs! (OK, reduction/concentration may well have cut costs, but it would have been better if he'd said so and said how much a year). Oh, 29 chicken suppliers! (Same remark).
In fact, this is part of an overall tactic in his article of talking about plethora. Woah, you guys, you realize they have 99 of everything? How can that be efficient? Obviously all this mess needs cleaning up...
Just, once again, a way of selling "necessary reform" without stating exactly what is wrong, exactly what is proposed, and exactly how that would fix it.
And -- not one minute -- who really wants to fool people into "needed reforms" and why.
Good deconstruction points. You're completely right that touching upon a plethora of services is not a direct argument for reform, but perhaps in Gumbel's world it is. There's no insight in financial numbers.
Finally: since I know you're in favour of quality food production sold as locally as possible, how would you supply a huge hospital group? my answer would be : sounds difficult, but all the same, the hospitals buyer must do her/is best to get quality food and not to concentrate too much on one supplier...
Exactly the question. You know, when I walked the dog today, I may suggest that the hunger for scale enlargement may again be at the heart of it. The distribution from chickens (or pigs) is really not hard: you transport the chikens to the butcher and from there they can be distributed directly to the hospital. It's just that if you do this locally, costs per chicken increases. That's it. Now, if only we could increase transporation costs to make local, small scale distribution/butcher complexes more attractive again... Let's get 29 distribution centres with the best chicken meat from local farmers to ill people. I'm all for it. Perhaps we should contact Jamie Oliver...
(Is there a diary on how much miles a dead chicken currently makes before it ends up in a pot?)
Is there a diary on how much miles a dead chicken currently makes before it ends up in a pot?
The dead chickens I see could walk it. But no, I don't have data, only anecdote.
The chicken distribution problem: the only certain added costs from having a certain number of suppliers seem to me to be administrative/accounting costs. These would be reduced by doing away with competition, but the price might then go up.
If you strike a cheap deal with a mono-supplier far away, he will recoup transport costs in product quality. (And we don't want long-distance transport for environmental reasons).
Anyway, we want a change in hospital attitudes to food. Sick people need good food.
So, logically, we should be looking for best-quality suppliers as close as possible, and in sufficent number for there to be some reasonable competition. 29 suppliers for 38 hospitals may seem like a lot, but some of them may be stop-gap suppliers used every now and again. Agreed the number could be reduced, and the buying centralized, but not to the point of according a quasi-monopoly.
I understood about the dog. Woof!
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 11 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 2 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 21 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 22 55 comments
by Oui - Aug 18 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 12 25 comments
by Oui - Sep 8
by Oui - Sep 7
by Oui - Sep 62 comments
by Oui - Sep 52 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5
by Oui - Sep 41 comment
by Oui - Sep 47 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 311 comments
by Oui - Sep 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 16 comments
by Oui - Sep 114 comments
by Oui - Sep 171 comments
by Oui - Sep 11 comment
by gmoke - Aug 29
by Oui - Aug 2818 comments
by Oui - Aug 271 comment
by Oui - Aug 262 comments
by Oui - Aug 2626 comments
by Oui - Aug 251 comment