Skip to main content

One in six hospitals offers private services to boost income

Privatisation of provision in the NHS is moving apace a new investigation has shown. One in six hospitals in England have introduced new private treatment options this year, as cost pressures tighten restrictions on some NHS services, reveals a BMJ investigation today.

This includes a growing number of hospitals offering patients the choice of “self funding” for treatments and services that are subject to restrictions or to long waiting times on the NHS, such as IVF, cataract surgery and hernia repair.

In these cases, treatments are offered at cheaper rates than in the private sector.

The BMJ obtained data from 134 acute hospital trusts in England through freedom of information requests and found that:
119 trusts (89%) now offer traditional private care or “self funded” services
21 (16%) added new self funding or private treatment options for 2013-14, and
17 (13%) now allow patients to pay for one or more services at notional NHS rates, under the self funding scheme

Providers told the BMJ that the schemes make care more accessible. But critics say that the growth of self funding has muddied the waters between private care and the NHS by creating a two tier system - particularly in combination with government rule changes that allow hospitals to raise up to 49% of funds through non-NHS work.

Hospitals to have introduced new options for patients in the past year include Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust for varicose vein surgery, Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust for liver scans, and age related macular degeneration, and Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust in Essex for imaging services and chemotherapy.

Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has also recently begun offering “self funded” cycles of IVF treatment for patients who have used up their NHS funded cycles.

Many trusts that the BMJ contacted said they did not differentiate between “self funded” and “private” care. But John Appleby, chief economist at the healthcare think tank the King’s Fund, said that, regardless of price, care was still being funded from patients’ own pockets and was driven by cost restrictions.

Critics argue that self funding not only blurs the lines between NHS and private care but could also disadvantage NHS patients because, unlike more traditional private patients, self funding patients are often treated in the same premises as NHS patients.

The lines are arguably being blurred even further by a new scheme from the private provider Care UK, which recently introduced a new self pay option at four of its 11 NHS funded treatment centres across England.

A spokesman for Care UK said self-pay patients “will not be prioritised over NHS patients.” But Nicholas Hopkinson, a consultant chest physician in London, said he opposed self funding as it could lead to an “inferior service” for those not paying.

John Appleby believes that, as self pay schemes expand, they should be strictly governed and separated from NHS care to ensure that NHS patients are not being adversely affected.

The Foundation Trust Network, which represents NHS foundation hospital trusts in England, said that most trusts had systems in place to stop paying patients “queue jumping” ahead of NHS patients when being treated in the same facility, and that it expected more treatments to be available to self funding in the future.

But David Hunter, Professor of health policy and management at Durham University, warns that not only could self funding schemes pave the way for “a two-tier or multi-tier system which is both complicated and inequitable,” they could also lead to commissioners and providers focusing their energies on more lucrative procedures to raise additional funds

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Bad trade kills the planet.

One problem with the financial crisis of 2008/9 is that it focused attention on the banking system as if it could be separated from global economics.  It fostered the notion that all that was needed was to reform the banks and all would be well.  The underlying assumption was and is that global economics didn't and doesn't need fixing.  Everything works well but for the financial system.  Let's all keep calm and carry on.

Yet, the focus on a bad banking system hides an underlying economic malaise,  The economy depended on banks lending, and growth was predicated on debt, debt and more debt.  This was not simply a problem of the banking system.  It was, and remains a problem arising from the mythology of economic growth.

Politicians have long fostered the mythology of growth.  Growth became a  mantra.  Growth is good.  Good is growth.  Let's grow! Growth as and is presented as a miraculous cure.

Let's call this the first neoliberal myth.  The second neoliberal myth…

Hummingbird exposure to pesticides

Many have responded to the campaigns to stop the use of pesticides killing bees.  Bees are not the only animals affected.

Hummingbirds are noted as a species of conservation concern by Partners in Flight, and their populations are estimated to have declined by 60% between 1970 and 2014.



New research reveals that hummingbirds and bumble bees are being exposed to neonicotinoid and other pesticides through routes that are widespread and complex. The findings are published in Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry.

To measure exposure to pesticides in these avian pollinators, investigators made novel use of cloacal fluid and fecal pellets from hummingbirds living near blueberry fields in British Columbia. They also collected bumble bees native to Canada, and their pollen, and blueberry leaves and flowers from within conventionally sprayed and organic blueberry farms.

The researchers detected pesticides and related compounds in cloacal fluid and fecal pellets of hummingbirds revealing…

Brexit won't save the planet

Brexit isn't an ideal. It might break the cosy economic and political illusion that all growth and trade is good. But there is little thinking behind it. It won't lead to better trade. It won't save our planet.



No plan for Brexit The UK is  now just months away from leaving the European Union, yet still the government has no plan for Brexit. Sector after sector of British society are registering their concerns about the consequences of a 'no deal' Brexit.  The country is in the dark about what the future might hold.  Key issues remain unresolved, yet it is as if it doesn't matter.   Brexit, remember, means Brexit!  
Whether we are for or against Brexit we should be concerned that the government can't agree on what kind of deal they want with our biggest trading partner - the European Union.  
There is no idealism behind Brexit, and no vision for the future.  Instead, there is a blind hope that it will be 'alright on the night'.  That somehow a…