The UK Government’s Procurement Service has extended its ‘Assistive Technologies – Telecare, Telehealth and Telecoaching’ framework agreement for a year until 5 August 2013.
Why? Who did they consult on the pros and cons of extending it?
Let me (ed. Steve) pause a moment to pick apart the introduction to the framework on its web page, which is so mindlessly written it undermines the credibility of the Procurement Service: “The Assistive Technologies framework provides a quick and effective means of purchasing products and services for the monitoring and care of elderly and vulnerable residents within their own homes, with the aim of improving patients’ lifestyle and reducing the need for routine GP and hospital visits.” This shows they know nothing of what they speak…
The Assistive Technologies [inappropriate term]
framework provides a quick [i.e. potentially sloppy]
and effective [by what standards? What about new products and companies that have come into the market since it was first set up? What about the persistent rumours that some of the companies lied about their track record and capabilities in their framework applications?]
means of purchasing products and services for the monitoring and care of elderly [inappropriate term excludes disabled people of all ages]
and vulnerable [inappropriately unqualified term: vulnerable to what?]
residents within their own homes [inappropriate constriction of the range of interest]
with the aim of improving patients [many people who benefit from telecare, for example, are not patients]
lifestyle and reducing the need for routine GP and hospital visits [further inappropriate health focus]
At a time when the 3ML campaign wishes to move the market forward, fossilising it through the framework surely does not help.
I completely agree regarding the framework agreement. Solutions4Health, as an excluded telehealth solutions provider, sees the following as serious issues in keeping the UK as a leader in the telehealth/telecare/teleconsultation industry –
1. as a provider of telehealth solutions and services we believe this framework agreement is doing a disservice to the taxpayer in not considering younger companies that are typically more innovative in the provision of products and services.
2.the framework agreement feels very ‘anti-competitive’ and completely unfair as we believe we can provide ‘more innovative’ and better ‘value-for-money’ for the taxpayer.
3. the only way we can be considered under this framework agreement is to partner with an incumbent organisation with the obvious disadvantage of adding margins and unnecessary costs to the solution, therefore compromising ‘value-for-money’ for the taxpayer.
4.we also understand this framework agreement has just been extended by a year (!!!) and it is quite possible that it could be extended for another 12 months, 1 year on from now. How can this be good for the taxpayer when other companies are able to bring new ideas, technology, innovation and value for money to the industry?
With ‘3 Million Lives’ moving forward I believe it’s time the Government wakes up to this anti-competitive, anti-innovation framework agreement and takes some positive steps to ensure all appropriate companies are able to compete fairly in the UK’s telehealth/telecare sector without discrimination, ensuring the UK remains one of the leading countries in this industry.