by frog
Some interesting information about McKesson, the company awarded the contract to provide PlunketLine’s service, has come to light in this press release of Sue Kedgley’s. It seems that the parent company of McKesson New Zealand, McKesson Corporation, has been accused of fraud on more than one occasion. It is also one of the top 100 US Defense Contractors (it provides pharmaceuticals), and two of its Executive Officers are Directors of the New Zealand arm (you can see the directors by searching the companies register here).
This raises some significant questions about why a company like this has been favoured over the trusted institution of Plunket!
Published in Health & Wellbeing by frog on Wed, April 12th, 2006
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Well considering statistics released by the government last year showed that 80% of calls to Plunket Line were going unanswered one wonders why the government wouldn’t award the contract to McKesson who have quite an impressive record concerning service.
But back to the fraud…
So, between four years they defrauded the US Department of Defence of 3 million dollars by charging more for pharmaceuticals than was agreed in a contract – maybe it was an attempt to reflect new production costs between October 1997 to December 2001, a sneaky attempt to maintain profits or maybe they were just greedy! Lets not speculate.
My main point is three million over four years in minute; trust me, the New Zealand government wastes more money than that every week. Considering it only happened once (do you honestly expect me to believe or even consider a website called ‘Corp Watch’ to be slightly objective?)
I don’t often commend Labour, but they have done the right thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Related to your last post. Price.
Buy the cheapest, whatever the consequences. Short term planning vs long term wisdom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What are the consequences apart from a better service at a lower price?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The honest way of getting more money is to present your case and negotiate for the increase. Putting your hand in the till is fraud, aka theft.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BTW, that report is by the US DOJ. We would normally expect them to be objective.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fastbike, firstly, forcing people to purchase things for others is theft as well just in a more acceptable manner some might say.
Yes, I agree what they did was wrong, but putting things in perspective, it’s like a person stealing a few five cent coins from a person’s dashboard. I know the Green’s policy wouldn’t be to forever punish the perpetrator; it would be quite the opposite… come on guys, think progressive!
Secondly, I didn’t question the first link, but I questioned the second link to “Corp Watch”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The link to Corp Watch is to an article published in the San Francisco Chronicle. Sure, its on a partisan website, but they’ve simply reproduced it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t know where to begin here. Aren’t the greens ranting about due process etc. etc. when it comes to militant Islamic terrorists?
And now you’re raising the fact that a company has been “accused of fraud” in an op-ed questioning that company’s suitability for a particular contract?
Jeez. Pot, meet kettle …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DR
I heard it that 80% of the Calls to Plunket WERE answered, ie 20% NOT answered (… still too high a failure rate but rather less than the other way around!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
More importantly, on the issue of unanswered calls, the rate only became so bad after PlunketLine started operating under McKesson.
When Healthline (operated by McKesson) was set up, PlunketLine was merged into it, and McKesson contracted Plunket to continue to provide their services. THAT’S when the rate of unanswered calls started getting steadily worse. Plunket eventually asked to split from the arrangement, since it obviously wasn’t working, and asked for funding to provide a separate service. Instead, the Govt awarded the whole lot to McKesson.
What Sue K says is that Plunket should be given adequate funding and a chance to prove itself and operate independently, because NZ parents know and trust Plunket’s advice. Especially given what’s come to light about McKesson.
Radio NZ carried some good coverage of the fraud allegations against McKesson Corporation this morning – here’s the link: http://www.radionz.co.nz/__data/assets/audio_item/366237/mnr-443D564C-wmbr.asx
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why not just let Plunket fund itself, through donations, fees, sponsorship, advertising etc., the same way any charity should?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DB
What an original idea! … and while Plunket are busy doing all this fundraising, can I assume that you will be consistent and advocate that McKesson Corporation should do the same to fund their part of the helpline service?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen, if I understand you correctly you’re saying that McKesson shouldn’t receive any Government funding? I think we’re agreed on that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes. Charities have no right to call on the tools of compulsion (government) to steal money from individuals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nor can strawmen hope to stand against the withering attacks of DB and SW! I for one cheered as you belted the stuffing out of this scarecrow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)