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

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

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,