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

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As