RTÉ Investigates: Medical suppliers bribing hospital purchasers

Aidric · 17-07-2015 10:34PM

UsedToWait wrote: »

Presumably, given what has come out about competitor's prices being shared with the company, they were able to be the lowest bidder.
Also, I would assume the purchasing department was favourable to the company's product in the scoring process of the tendering in respect of the intangible elements such as quality.

Given that payments were allegedly given in cash, I'm not sure how the auditors could find anything amiss?

Cash payments in lieu of public hospital contracts?

ted1 · 17-07-2015 10:36PM

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Yes I meant more from a public rage point of view, private companies can bung and bribe each other for all I care

Vincent's is private but funded by the HSE.

UsedToWait · 17-07-2015 10:38PM

Aidric wrote: »

Cash payments in lieu of public hospital contracts?

I was talking about the cash payments for insider knowledge and, presumably, influence..
I'm sure the procurement process was prima facie run to look legit

Aidric · 17-07-2015 10:43PM

UsedToWait wrote: »

I was talking about the cash payments for insider knowledge and, presumably, influence..
I'm sure the procurement process was prima facie run to look legit

Hmmm, wasn't the Beacon acquired by Denis O Brien with a heavy debt profile?
Not implying there is anything related.

jmayo · 21-07-2015 02:42PM

gladrags wrote: »

The Gardai and the HSE were informed a year ago.

RTE has specified that there are at least another 3-4 Dublin hospitals involved,but they cannot name them for legal reasons.

I don't see you mention the interests of the patient,which as far as I am concerned,is the priority.

I am sure that you would like to be reassured that if you or any of your family were to undergo a medical procedure,that the equipment used,is fit for purpose.

I don't know anyone, bar you, is saying that the products were not fit for purpose.
Are you now questioning the manufacturer bona fides ?

The products this company sells are not some shyte that falls off the back of a lorry from some fly by night manufacturer, but all products from major multinational manufacturers who will have no doubt gone through major medical accreditation processes to allow their products be sold in the market place.

If there was an issue with the products then doctors and staff would not be using them.

The issue is the prices charged and the value for money gotten by the hospital and hence the taxpayers and owners of said hospital.
Als the fact that the purchasing staff were relaying the competitors pricing to this company is tantamount to industrial espionage and in some jurisdictions a criminal offence.

BigBrownBear wrote: »

What should be happening in the health service is a proper tendering process.
A ward or department identifies a number of medical products it requires.
They meet with the purchasing department and agree specs required.
The purchasing dept then contacts ALL potential suppliers to submit a quote, based on the specs requested.
Each company then provides a quote and a sample of their product, for quality analysis.
Each sample is assessed and the ward or dept meet with purchasing dept and give feedback.
A contract is awarded, for a defined period to the company that satisfies both quality and cost.
This ensures the decision is not left up to one individual, thus reducing the likelihood of the indivual being potentially compromised

There is a very thorough tendering process, but if the people reviewing the tenders decide to throw some of the guidelines and criteria out the window, what do you do.

If you raise a stink in this business then you get a name for being awkward and you lose contracts down the road.

I know of one incident where a tender result was overturned and the tender process was carried out again because the first company that won the tender did not actually meet the tender criteria.

Don't ask me what happened to the staff who awarded the tender the first time. Probably nothing I would guess.

I also know of cases where a company has won a tender and is meant to supply hospital, but yet hospital staff go off and continue to source the goods from another supplier who had the contract previously.
Is that right ?

One could surmise that there are sweetners because staff can go out of there way to make sure certain suppliers win contracts.
Hiospital staff can put enough of the right hurdles in place to make sure "their preferred" supplier gets the gig.

RainyDay · 21-07-2015 03:13PM

jmayo wrote: »

There is a very thorough tendering process, but if the people reviewing the tenders decide to throw some of the guidelines and criteria out the window, what do you do.

The usual practice in my experience (mostly tenders for services rather than goods) would be to have at least one external person on a tender panel. There would also usually be someone from a different department to the lead person. This all minimises the chances of corrupting the tender process - as you'd now have to corrupt/bribe three people, not just one.

Which brings me on to a very interesting question about this case - who approved the relevant invoices in St Vincents and the Beacon?

The person who approves the invoices has a particular responsibility to ensure that value for money has been achieved. It has to be a different person to whoever placed the orders - standard Segregation of Duties requirements that would be checked by auditors.

So whoever signed off on those invoices must be having some squeaky bum moments these days...

Man down at the Beacon; http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0721/716248-beacon-hospital/

gladrags · 21-07-2015 05:24PM

jmayo wrote: »

I don't know anyone, bar you, is saying that the products were not fit for purpose.
Are you now questioning the manufacturer bona fides ?

The products this company sells are not some shyte that falls off the back of a lorry from some fly by night manufacturer, but all products from major multinational manufacturers who will have no doubt gone through major medical accreditation processes to allow their products be sold in the market place.

If there was an issue with the products then doctors and staff would not be using them.

If the procurement standards have been breached,does this not raise the question of the quality of the product.?

And if the supplier and buyer have breached the standards,what guarantee is there that other standards have not been breached.?

Have the standards that govern the procurement of surgical instruments beem breached.?

And how common is this practice across the HSE and the private sector.?

The patient is the bottom line,and I believe that the patients interests have been compromised,we are talking about medical supplies here.

BigBrownBear · 21-07-2015 06:27PM

Tendering is only required for a certain five figure sum. It has no relevance to the Prime TIme programme as the products they discussed weren't, tendered for.
They were a quote, not a tender application
If someone wants to change a product below the above mentioned sum, they are not required to instigate a tendering process

RainyDay · 21-07-2015 08:12PM

BigBrownBear wrote: »

Tendering is only required for a certain five figure sum. It has no relevance to the Prime TIme programme as the products they discussed weren't, tendered for.
They were a quote, not a tender application
If someone wants to change a product below the above mentioned sum, they are not required to instigate a tendering process

But it is explicitly against procurement rules to split shipments to get below the relevant thresholds. So while the amounts of the orders shown in the programme were fairly low, the real question is how much does the hospital spend on these products overall. One of the products mentioned were drapes, which would surely involve huge quantities in a hospital like St Vincents.

And even for smaller quantities, they are required to get three quotes from competing suppliers.

jmayo · 22-07-2015 12:31PM

gladrags wrote: »

If the procurement standards have been breached,does this not raise the question of the quality of the product.?

And if the supplier and buyer have breached the standards,what guarantee is there that other standards have not been breached.?

Have the standards that govern the procurement of surgical instruments beem breached.?

And how common is this practice across the HSE and the private sector.?

The patient is the bottom line,and I believe that the patients interests have been compromised,we are talking about medical supplies here.

Once again you are basically questioning the quality of the products of these multinationals.
Medical products usually have had to go through trials and certification process to be deemed fit for sale in western markets.
That costs money and that together with the quality standard necessary in manufacture is what adds to the high price of medical supplies.
Same applies to aviation and to some extenet defense industries.

You don't have to buy crap products to have fraud and to cream money.
All you do is overcharge and this appears to be what they were doing.

Also they knew from price lists what pricing to instigate to get contracts or purchases.

The patients interest has been compromised from the point that money that could spent on better care for them was wasted, ultimately on expensive foreign holidays for certain staff.
Staff that don't even ever see a patient.

The higher service and repair area costs may be easier to get through, as they can waffle more than with actual purchasable product.

But as Rainyday mentioned ...
Who passed these invoices ?

In the case of service and repair charges, in-house service department or clinical engineering should have seen the extorionate costs and surely someone should have raised a red flag ?

Some one doing a purchasing report should surely have spotted the blatant spike in costs for the parts that should have cost 700, but were bought for 7000.

Then again some hospitals get the suppliers to give them the reports on what they buy because they can't be ar*ed doing their own.

I think we went off on tangent when discussing tenders and contracts, but I know of incidents where they have resulted in some strange decisions so not sure if same games were afoot behind the scenes.

LordSutch · 22-07-2015 12:42PM

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Didn't see it but that it happens is not surprising, the health and medical supplies industries are run on practices that some would call bribery.

Bribery, corruption, malpractice, sharp practice, unethical bent dealings! < take your pick.

I guess the characters involved are either "on leave" or gone for good.
Amazing that this kind of carry on can still exist in this day & age.

gladrags · 22-07-2015 06:23PM

jmayo wrote: »

Once again you are basically questioning the quality of the products of these multinationals.
Medical products usually have had to go through trials and certification process to be deemed fit for sale in western markets.
That costs money and that together with the quality standard necessary in manufacture is what adds to the high price of medical supplies.
Same applies to aviation and to some extenet defense industries.

You don't have to buy crap products to have fraud and to cream money.
All you do is overcharge and this appears to be what they were doing.

Also they knew from price lists what pricing to instigate to get contracts or purchases.

The patients interest has been compromised from the point that money that could spent on better care for them was wasted, ultimately on expensive foreign holidays for certain staff.
Staff that don't even ever see a patient.

The higher service and repair area costs may be easier to get through, as they can waffle more than with actual purchasable product.

But as Rainyday mentioned ...
Who passed these invoices ?

In the case of service and repair charges, in-house service department or clinical engineering should have seen the extorionate costs and surely someone should have raised a red flag ?

Some one doing a purchasing report should surely have spotted the blatant spike in costs for the parts that should have cost 700, but were bought for 7000.

Then again some hospitals get the suppliers to give them the reports on what they buy because they can't be ar*ed doing their own.

I think we went off on tangent when discussing tenders and contracts, but I know of incidents where they have resulted in some strange decisions so not sure if same games were afoot behind the scenes.

The first thing that needs to be questioned,from a risk management perspective,is the quality.

We are talking hospitals here,and the ethics of quality standards,for patients.

It is that simple.

How frequent is this practice,and how many of our hospitals are using this "methodology".?

That is the most important factor,in all of this.

23-07-2015 03:11PM

Just appearing on the RTÉ site:

HSE says Eurosurgical has suspended employee

It sounds like a bit of a sham, as in the initial RTÉ programme it was stated that Alan Kane, the sales director above, is one of the owners of this family firm. It's not like he was some ordinary employee.

24-07-2015 12:31AM

It seems something very similar in corruption terms is happening in the NHS over in Britain according to the Daily Telegraph website this evening:

NHS bosses paid by drug firms

Lavish trips laid on by drugs firms to sway NHS staff

"Senior NHS staff are being paid thousands of pounds and taken on expensive trips by drug companies lobbying to get their products used by the health service, the Daily Telegraph can reveal..."

RTÉ Investigates: Medical suppliers bribing hospital purchasers

Comments