Skip to main content

Rationing is fragmenting the NHS.

With rationing in the National Health Service there is a post-code lottery in treatment. An investigation by the British Medical Journal shows treatments available just a few months ago are no longer provided in some areas. This post-code lottery in available treatments is a shocking state of affairs, and is further evidence of a fragmenting health service.

There is no doubt the NHS is now struggling to cope with increased demand with limited resources. Commissioners and providers have had to face difficult decisions about how to prioritise limited funding and to balance their budgets.

Funding requests are a key marker of treatment rationing. An individual funding request can be made by clinician if they believe that a particular treatment or service that is not routinely offered by the NHS is the best treatment for their patient. As treatments become rationed or unavailable there is a concomitant increase in the number of funding requests.

Normally, the vast majority of treatments and services that patients need are offered routinely by the NHS, but the BMJ investigation shows that the overall number of individual funding requests received by clinical commissioning groups in England increased by 47% in the past four years. Thousands of patients are being turned down for funding each year, while many others are forced to wait for their treatment while their request is considered.

Whatever the government may say about NHS funding, what is clear is that funding per patient has fallen.

NHS Clinical Commissioners recently warned that Commissioning Groups would have £5.72 less to spend per person in 2019-20 than in 2016-17 under current funding from the government.

Clinicians are having to plead for funding for treatment for their patients. There has been a surge in funding requests for hip and knee surgery, cataract removal, and carpal tunnel surgery over the past four years and the consistently high number of mental healthcare requests.

Doctors have warned that rationing is leaving some patients in pain as they wait for treatment.







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...

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...