Should private firms reimburse the NHS if they exceed a 5% profit on contracts?

why? the NHS doesn't make profits anyway it could if it was a Private subscription sercvice as everyone paying maybe 10 a month or maybe groups 30 for familys 2 adults up to 3 children. children under 18 get reduced rates.

No, if privatisation exists within the NHS, then it needs to be good and companies need an incentive otherwise why would they bother?

Yes, except certain health services will have an exception; those of which are mostly where people go to.

We should ensure that the contract NHS has with private companies, such as pharmaceutical companies within specified profit margins, to pharmaceutical companies.

No, but increase profits margins while maintaining to keep the uk as the cheapest healthcare system in the world

I think we should move to privatized healthcare and it should be mandatory for everyone in the uk to have healthcare insurance

No, the NHS should be fully re-nationalised

There should be zero private firms working in healthcare

Private companies who take advantage of the NHS and benefit to excess on their contracts should reimburse some of it however this should be staggered depending on value of contract

Only where profits can be reinvested to improve quality of services.

If they exceed by 50 %

No, but give people an option to get a tax relief choice, if a person has private medical insurance.

Don’t Know

10% embursement

don’t have a clue

The NHS tendering process should governed far more to ensure value for money.

No, if they exceed 50%

i dont really know.

Only if the NHS is in need of it

There should be no private input into the NHS.

There should be a profit cap, but the level may need to be varied depending on the contract.

i hate numbers

Depends on how much

that should be debated there is conflicting arguments from the SNP'S & Labour party

Don’t get it

No, but private firms should take on/increase the amount of NHS patients

10%, 5 is too low to be profitable

Yes but only a percentage

Maybe 15% as 5% isnt sufficient return for a company to invest

Only if they offer more service

Health funding should be provided by the government, but profits should be part of a wider range of targets such as quality of service and targets.

If the private company has incentives it may cause more competition and be cheaper for the NHS at another certain profit %

More than 10% profit

Depends on the size of the firm

No but profits can only be retained if the company delivers on it's target's and reinvests a certain amount of 5% on service improvements (tax-free).

Profit should not be allowed on healthcare

Yes, but I would rather make all health services publicly owned, rather than state of privately owned

Yes but is this creates issues with demand there must be other incentives

Yes, but split any profits over 5% with the NHS (e.g. 50/50)

Yes, but NHS should also analyse and calculate value for money contracts (not jobs for mates).

not a clue what this means bro.

I don’t have a stance

Yes but at higher rate than 5%

No, 5% dis-incentivises supply. Over 10% would be more reasonable.

Yes, but reduce the margin to 3%

Profit should be a certain level above inflation.

5% is low. I’d say 10-15% otherwise NHS is in danger of being overlooked and other agencies favoured. For example pharmaceutical companies trade with other countries etc they May prioritise supply to them if profits are higher. Cause and effect!

No, I would rather eliminate any privitisation of the NHS but limiting profit to 5% may remove the ability for private businesses to provide overflow or specialist care.

Yes, but the threshold should be higher to encourage investment