CIRCLE HEALTH LIMITED Further Response from Circle to Provisional Findings and Remedies Notice

Content Provider	Semantic Scholar
Copyright Year	2013
Abstract	The CC recognized correctly that enabling consultants to own the facilities in which they provide clinical services may actually lower barriers to entry and therefore encourage competition. It explains why Circle (Bath and Reading) and KIMs (Maidstone), each co-owned by consultants, are the only recent new market entrants to offer full-service secondary care to privately insured and selfpay patients. Despite this fact, many of the incumbent providers and PMIs have cynically argued that equity ownership by consultants should be banned, invoking an array of specious arguments. It’s ironic and transparent that those arguing most vociferously against consultant ownership are the very same operators (BMI and Ramsay) who previously operated the discredited “cash-forpatients” schemes. Their sudden hostility to all forms of consultant incentives, including the equity ownership model that has enabled Circle and KIMS to build new state-of-the-art hospitals in the same markets where they operate, should be seen for exactly what it is: naked self-interest.
File Format	PDF HTM / HTML
Alternate Webpage(s)	https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5329dd39e5274a226800018b/131224_circle_additional.pdf
Language	English
Access Restriction	Open
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article