Skip to main content

Over 200 general practices closed or merged in England last year

As the population increases we would expect a concomitant rise in demand for health and social services. Good government would seek to meet that rising need, yet NHS funding has been essentially frozen over the last six years as part of austerity. This is despite the Tory claim in 2010 that they would 'ring fence' funding for the NHS.


The latest data from NHS Digital reveal there were 58,492,541 patients registered at GP practices in England on 1 July 2017. There were 2,427,526 more registered patients on 1 July 2017 compared to (56,065,015 ) 1 July 2013. Yet, there has been an insufficient increase in funding for the NHS to cope with this increased demand.


But the government not only denies cuts in funding, it says funding for the NHS has increased. It is a disingenuous defence. Of course funding for the NHS has risen, and funding is continuing to grow but at historically low rates and it is insufficient for services to meet increasing needs, and the rate of growth is slowing.

The Department of Health budget will have grown by just 1.1 per cent in real terms between 2009/10 and 2020/21. This is far below the long-term average increases in health spending of approximately 4 per cent a year in real terms since the NHS was established.


The problem is made worse in primary care because GP practices are closing or merging - 200 have closed or merged in the last year.

Furthermore, the BMA (British Medical Association) which represents doctors in the UK has warned that these figures are just “the tip of the iceberg”. Many more practices are at risk of closure because of rising demand, workforce shortages, and financial pressure.


The Department of Health budget is set to increase by just 0.6 per cent on average each of the next three years. As a result there will be increasing pressure on the NHS as demand for services is continues to grow.







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

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

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau