Government’s migrant charging proposals impractical, uneconomic and could damage the NHS, warns BMA

The government’s proposals for an extended charging system for migrants and short term visitors attempting to access healthcare in UK are impractical, inefficient, uneconomic and could cause unintended damage to NHS services, the BMA said today (Wednesday, 28 August 2013)

Responding to the government’s recent consultations on migrant and short term visitor access to the NHS, the BMA has outlined serious concerns about these proposals:

There is no evidence that the income derived from charging short term visitors or migrants would be sufficient to cover the significant cost of the increased bureaucracy necessary to administer the system.
It is difficult to see how extending charging to general practice could be implemented without ensuring every patient was checked by their GP practice when they register, resulting in inconvenience for all patients and an increased administrative burden on already over stretched GP services.
There is no explanation of what documentation patients will need to use to prove they have permanent residency. There is no obligation for UK residents to hold a passport and the documentation some practices currently require, such as utility bills, would not prove permanent resident status.
Forcing non-European Economic Area (EEA) migrants2, and any dependents, to make a contribution to their healthcare costs could reduce the likelihood of highly skilled migrants coming to work in the UK.
If migrants and short term visitors are deterred from seeing a GP, it may become more difficult for the NHS to identify communicable diseases such as TB. This could increase public health risks for the wider population and result in increased stress on NHS services.

The BMA agrees with the government that care should not be denied to patients who require immediate treatment, but the current proposals do raise ethical concerns. For example, charging could deter patients from seeking emergency care and could make them reluctant to bring their children to a GP practice or emergency care department.

Dr Mark Porter, Chair of BMA Council said:

“The BMA believes that anyone accessing NHS services should be eligible to do so, but the government’s plans for extending charging to migrants and short term visitors are impractical, uneconomic and inefficient. The NHS does not have the infrastructure or resources to administrate a charging system that is not likely to produce enough revenue to cover the cost of setting up its own bureaucracy. The NHS does not need more administrators; it should be spending its money on caring for patients.

“More worryingly, the proposals could have an impact on the care all patients receive. If non-EEA doctors are forced to make contributions to their healthcare this could discourage them from coming to practice in the UK and working in key services, such as emergency departments, which are experiencing doctor shortages. This could exacerbate the current workload pressures already facing the NHS.

“The government needs to rethink it is entire approach to this issue as in their current form these proposals are unworkable and potentially damaging to the NHS.”

Dr Chaand Nagpaul, Chair of the BMA’s GP committee said:

“GPs, like many other NHS staff, do not have the capacity to administer a complicated bureaucratic system that is of questionable benefit to taxpayers and patients.

“Asking patients to produce documentation to prove their residency faces a number of problems. It would mean all patients would have to have their eligibility checked each time they register with their GP. This would be a huge inconvenience to all members of the public and would take up valuable time that practices could be using to treat patients. Some UK residents, especially many older people, will not have a passport or a bank account which raises the concern that some of the most vulnerable members of our society will face delays in accessing care.

“We have seen with the recent NHS 111 debacle what happens when an ill thought out policy is rushed through without proper consideration of the practical and clinical implications. Ministers need to learn from recent experiences and work with healthcare professionals to find workable solutions to this issue.“

Follow @Ray_Noble1

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery. Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

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

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund. The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021. With direct and indirect investment, the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn. Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects, the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk. Finance is the oil in the economic machine. But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions. Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good? Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,

The Thin End

Search This Blog