Skip to main content

Private practice hurts the NHS says leading cardiologist.

Private practice directly affects the quality of care that NHS patients receive and doctors should not be allowed to work on both sides of the divide, writes a senior doctor in The BMJ this week.

Recently I sat waiting for a urology test. The clinic was already running late.  When I arrived it was running 45 minutes late, but now the 'estimate' had been changed on the white board to 90 minutes.  I sat patiently waiting. It was not unusual. I had come prepared with a newspaper to read.  A woman opposite broke the 'silence'.

"I went private last time!" she declared.

Some of us looked up, wondering whether this was the solution to waiting.

"It was the same doctor!" She declared, and we wondered how a busy consultant could work both for the NHS and have a private clinic.  To whom did he owe his loyalty?

It has been an accepted part of the NHS since its foundation.  At the heart of the NHS has always been this conundrum. Does it matter? Is there a conflict of interest?  At least some doctors think so and are prepared to say so.

John Dean, a consultant cardiologist at Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, describes how he quit private practice after realising it has direct adverse effects on the NHS.

To begin with, he says he felt that he needed the money to renovate the house, educate the children, and so on. And he was sure that he could keep the private work separate from the NHS work. But, he says, it became increasingly difficult to keep the lid on the private jar as the contents expanded, and spillage was inevitable.

The fact is that the business of medicine and the practice of medicine are at odds, he argues. Private medicine encourages doctors to make decisions based on profit rather than on need.

No matter how high I set my own moral and ethical standards, I could not escape the fact that I was involved in a business for which the conduct of some involved was so venal it bordered on the criminal - the greedy preying on the needy, he says.

He believes that private work has direct adverse effects on the NHS. A consultant cannot be in two places at once, he writes, and time spent in the private sector deprives the NHS of this valuable resource.

And he points out that, although patients think they are paying for higher quality medicine, the main advantage is simply to jump the NHS queue. “Private hospitals are five star hotels but for the most part no place to be if you are really sick.

But the most pernicious aspect of private medical work, he says, is the indirect effect it has on a consultant's NHS practice. It is difficult to justify subjecting private patients to unnecessary tests and treatments if you avoid doing them to NHS patients. So you have to operate the same system in both wings of your practice to ease the stress of this cognitive dissonance.

Private practice also creates a perverse incentive to increase your NHS waiting times, he adds.

The inescapable fact is that money is at the root of it all, he says, which is why he left private practice and why he believes the rulers of healthcare should draw an uncrossable line between private and public medicine and tell doctors to choose: you cannot work on both sides of the divide.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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