Lots and Networks - OV procurement part 2

So far then we've learned that vets in some areas rely on income from TB testing and that losing that business would have serious consequences for vets and farmers (if you missed part 1, its here). But what of the OV procurement proposals themselves - do the proposals make sense? Will they prevent these negative consequences? Lets find out. 

Lets start with the map from the AHVLAs consultation notes. It shows how England might be divided up into different "lots" containing a certain amount of TB work that vets can bid for. The areas are based on council boundaries and the colours show how they've been grouped together to form the lots. As a geographer, Im not sure this is the best way of doing it, but then again there are few other alternatives if you want lots to be based on specific areas. You could try to come up with areas based on the reach of existing practices - that would be interesting to see, and you would be able to see where you'd get most overlap and competition between existing practices.

Some of the lots are a lot bigger than the others - look at the size of the lot in Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, and Hertfordshire: its massive. Now look at Torridge in north-west Devon: its tiny in comparison. Of course, the variations in size reflect the differences in demand for testing: but these variations will also throw up different challenges of managing TB testing in each of the lots. Arguably, the level of disease in each lot is going to shape what kind of veterinary organisation wins the tender. Let me explain:



One of the problems with dividing up the lots according to area is the boundary problem: veterinary practices don't just serve district council areas, they cross them. In fact, disease and geography tend not to mix well at the best of times - its why vets like to say "disease knows no boundary" and why devolution of animal health policy has been something of a challenge (something Ive written about here). The solution to this is to encourage veterinary practices to work together to form a network of practices who would collectively bid for the lot. This also has the advantage of not disturbing the practice structure in that particular area, so where you have several big practices in close proximity, they all have a chance of surviving rather than one taking all the work to the detriment of the others. This though is the obvious challenge: will practices be able to work together?

In the big Cambridgeshire/Norfolk area the main challenge is going to be establishing that network and coordinating it. I havent (but I will) checked how many practices there are currently testing in that area, but my guess is that its going to be a lot. If all of them want to be part of that network , then its going to be hard to coordinate: thats a clear lesson from research on previous attempts at partnership and cooperative working. In these areas, TB testing may also be only a marginal business concern. Practices might not be too bothered about losing that business. In that case it will either lead to a concentration of farm animal practices (few, but larger practices), or instead we might see TB testing being delivered by a large organisation that is dedicated simply to TB testing. This is what happened with the contracts for slaughterhouse meat inspection offered by the Meat Hygiene Service. Just look at the size of some of those areas in the West and the North: if AHVLA really want those local practices to team up, then they're going to have to offer them some kind of support and advice. How realistic is that?

Perhaps this is less of a problem in those areas where there is a TB problem. In Devon, for instance, there are 5 areas (one of which crosses into Somerset). The smaller the area, potentially the easier it will be to join up with other practices. But even here there may be coordination problems. Some practices may have substantial chunks of work in 3 of these regions. Are we going to see practices forming companies in each of these regions? Or maybe one big company to bid for many lots?

Another problem might instead be local politics and divisions. These practices, dont forget, are in competition with each other. They may have fallen out with each other over something that happened last year or 20 years ago. Can they put their differences aside to work together? Even when they know that if they go it alone and win they could cause their rivals some serious problems? Potentially, its a tragedy of the commons - both for the veterinary profession, and agriculture too.

But all of this is conjecture. What about some evidence? OK, lets go to New Zealand and find out how they procure TB testing and what difference a competitive system of TB testing had upon farmers and the veterinary profession...

Part 3: TB Testing in New Zealand