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

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