Skip to main content

NHS crisis: Government ignores real problems facing GPs.

When governments run out of ideas or wish to avoid major funding decisions they introduce measures that sound good but in practice do little to address the real problems.  The Secretary of State for Health has announced the introduction of 'Osted-style' ratings for GP practices in England.

The announcement received a no-nonsense response from the BMA. Dr Chaand Nagpaul, BMA GP committee chair, said:

“We do not believe that simplistic Ofsted style ratings will lead to any improvement in patient care or give an accurate picture of services in local areas. The Secretary of State needs to also listen to the report from the Health Foundation, which he himself commissioned, which advised strongly against composite indicators which mask the details of quality of care, and which he is proposing now to introduce.”

An ageing population with complex health conditions has increased the burden on front-line services at a time when social care services have been cut.  Cuts in social care has a huge impact on the NHS, where each year £669m is being spent because older people are finding themselves trapped in hospital for days or even weeks.  It also increases pressure on front-line general practice. Since 2010 funding for social care has been cut by 25% leaving a massive deficit in meeting a growing need.  Families are left unsupported.  

Age UK estimates there are more than 1 million left struggling each day without proper support and the numbers continue to grow as cuts in funding leave local authorities struggling to meet needs. A report published by adult social care chiefs (Association of Directors of Adult Social Service (ADASS) earlier this year warned of £1.1bn budget cuts to the sector. Additional funds, it said, are urgently needed to protect services after "almost unendurable" cutbacks in the past five years. Spending on the NHS has remained static at best, whilst funding for social care has been cut by 10.7%. It is a false economy.

This demand is likely to increase as the number of people aged over 65 is predicted to reach 15.7 million by 2031.  We need to fundamentally rethink how this can be met. But we need also to bite the bullet that it will require more and sustainable funding.  The GP crisis is the front line of this deeper problem.

General practice is currently facing a tough financial climate. Since 2008,  General Practice income has declined by 11%  whilst the cost of running a practice (including the amount spent on keeping GP practice buildings in good shape, energy bills for GP practices and the amount spent on GP staff, including practice nurses and receptionists) has risen.

When we hear about GP incomes being high we should take account on one sobering fact.  The cost of running a practice now accounts for 61.6 per cent of total GP income. 

Little wonder then that many GP practice buildings have not seen serious investment for many years, leaving many facilities cramped and inadequate to meet the demands of patients.  A recent survey by the BMA found that  four out of ten GP practices feel that their current facilities are not adequate to deliver basic GP services to patients.

The number of GPs per head has declined from 62 per head in 2009 to 59.2 in 2012 whilst the demand for services increases.   In some parts of the country it is difficult to recruit sufficient GPs to meed local needs. 

As Dr Nagpaul of the BMA has warned,  "GP practices are struggling to deliver enough consultations to their patients because of the unprecedented strain from rising patient demand, falling resources and staff shortages."

The government continues to bury their collective head in the sand in face of this crisis with their false objective of deficit reduction.  It ignores the real issues.  It tinkers at the edges of the NHS and social care problem in England.  Ofsted-style assessment will by like cutting off the legs of a donkey and seeing how it walks.


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