Quote Originally Posted by Once Mighty View Post
Hello Everyone,

I have been following developments from a distance and I admire and commend the tenacity and resolution of the members posting their comments.

However if I may I would like to play the devil's advocate on the whole process.

Is it possible that BUPA have factored in the physiotherapist's reaction to their tender process.

Now let's assume that every tender that is submitted before the deadline is accepted on the list of "approved providers"


So in effecct I may be a Patient of my chosen therapist
Then I suddenly have problem that I need help with.

I follow my normal "clinical care pathway" (They do not actually start with the therapist )

They phone BUPA and I give my preferred therapists name.

BUPA then tell the patient that their preferred therapist is not on the list of approved providers.

The patient asks why and BUPA says "We are unable to disclose that information. We suggest that you direct that question to your therapist"

Sorry but a bit long winded; here's the point.

Supposing that BUPA accept EVERY physio who has "tendered" (To me personally an erroneous word in this context) a contract to provide services for their patients.

In effect:

We have self policed our profession

Taken the onus off BUPA to legislate who is fit to effectively practice

And they can turn around and say "Every physiotherapist that tendered has been included on the list of BUPA recognised providers. Why your specific therapist did not tender is not within our control.We suggest that you ask them directly the reason for their decision not to tender"

Put our own regulatory bodies in a ( in my personal opinion) in a dim light somewhat.

Last Thought. If this did happen and BUPA accept every tender submitted then the therapists who did not tender have in effect done BUPA's job for them.
If hypothetically every physio tendered, then it would be up to BUPA to decide which therapists were not up"to the mark".

As I understand it they would then have to decide who they would or wouldn't accept as service providers.

Surely it would be easier for the CSP an PF to fight individual cases on this basis.


I welcome your input on this issue
This is why no one should tender. Right now I no of almost no one in central London who is tendering, If BUPA want to rule out the main medical postcodes of the capital (which i had heard they were also going to do in the tender) then their patients will walk.

The inside word from within BUPA is that only a trickle of people have tendered. More than that BUPA have even been calling practised who havent yet submitted tenders asking them if they need help with their tender applications. Seems the NO vote is working in our favor as the number to provide a continuity of care for their customers is simple not enough. I also hear that physio's from the Nuffield group are not permitting that group to tender to BUPA on behalf of the group. I have read posts today saying that they have infact told Nuffiled that they are not endorsing that move, so this will further destroy BUPA's agenda.

We do need devil's advocates but it is clear weneed to stand together on this.

Patients want to see the people they want to see. If a PMI doesn't offer that then many will walk to competitors. We should be forcing that hand and let the PMI customer contract be the only point of negotiation.

BUPA are letting down their customers, not the physio's who are only offering to provide first rate care to an organisation (BUPA) that has already approved as appropriate to provide that care. Nothing else has changed.