Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Not one hospital, Nomad, the entire network of Paris hospitals, "the biggest in Europe with 38 hospitals. It treats more than 1 million patients per year and employs 90,000 people."

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...

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 09:34:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're absolutely right in that. Interestingly, if you read the piece hastily (as I did, since the tone of it quickly galled my hopes on a more constructive report), it doesn't read like that at all. Two disconnected facts presented in one column. Well caught.

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?

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 01:13:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As you cleverly guessed in advance, I have no knowledge of any such set-up. I don't quite get the business plan..! If you mean : 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...

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.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 03:27:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Shame on me. BTW, the Dutch equivalent for throwing powder in the eyes is "to throw sand in one's eyes".

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?)

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Fri Apr 28th, 2006 at 09:06:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Argh. No proofread. The walking the dog bit now reads strange. It is meant to say that this thought occurred to me when I walked with the dog - I get most of my better ideas either under the shower or when I'm walking the dog...
by Nomad (Bjinse) on Fri Apr 28th, 2006 at 09:08:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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 afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Apr 28th, 2006 at 05:10:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series