Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Life & Times

Two-tiered medicine: the increasing disparity in medical care in the UK

Judith Dawson
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (703): 72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp21X714737
Judith Dawson
GP Weavers Medical, Kettering, Northamptonshire, Clinical Lead for Leonard Cheshire. Email:
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: judith.dawson3@nhs.net
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

One of the many impacts of the coronavirus pandemic has been on the already complex interplay between the NHS and the private sector. During the worst of the lockdown in March, significant government funding underpinned the finances of the main private providers in order to purchase additional capacity for treating public-sector patients. All of the funding for ‘NHS’ Test and Trace has gone into the private sector, preventing development of a sustainable legacy for COVID-19 testing capacity in the health service, and delivering lucrative contracts to Serco and Deloittes.1 Even now, after the NHS should be returning to business as usual, in some parts of the country it is possible only to access screening for malignancy through private referral, including for patients who fall into groups where regular monitoring is recommended owing to genetic risk or previous malignancy.

From the letters that cross my desk, there is also an increase in private activity where patients are starting to self-refer to clinicians such as dermatologists rather than approach our practice for an NHS referral. Commercially run private-sector clinics for cosmetic surgery are accepting patients for procedures under general anaesthetic with the requirement for regular follow up, such as breast implant reaugmentation, at a time when the perioperative risks associated with COVID-19 are significant and some lifesaving procedures are not available in the state sector. There is also an expansion in dedicated private cancer treatment centres offering chemotherapy with no delay to treatment.2

Yet, in economic terms, health is classified as an area where market failure is well-known to occur and frequently discussed as a poor candidate for private provision. This is because there is an information asymmetry between the purchaser or patient and the deliverer of services.

I wonder how GPs choose which private consultant they refer to? Do we merely rely on the choice of the patient, based on hearsay or rating websites? Or do we refer to a ‘doctor’s doctor’ with little knowledge of the actual patient experience? A consultant who delivers excellent service in an NHS facility, with a full team of physiotherapists, expert nurses, and administrative staff may not be as effective in the private sector without such additional support. Those GPs who have been partners for many years and become used to carrying the burden of responsibility for every aspect of their organisations may be surprised to learn that there is no obligation for private clinicians to provide any continuity of care for outpatients or to notify them of change of premises or retirement.3 This is particularly of concern in view of the expanding market in cancer care.

FUTURE INEQUALITY IN PROVISION

There also continues to be a lack of accountability in that some private hospitals do not maintain supervision of the practice of the consultants who use their premises, regarding themselves effectively as landlords providing office space. This was clearly demonstrated in the inquiries into the actions of Ian Paterson, whose criminal behaviours had persisted, unchallenged, for many years.4 There is also an immobility factor causing market failure in health care, in that complex procedures require sophisticated facilities that cannot be relocated easily or distributed equitably geographically among customers.

Such an issue arose in 2019 when the Churchill Hospital in Oxford, an internationally renowned oncology centre, nearly lost the contract for in-house PET scan provision.5 This would have meant that patients with cancer would need to travel off site to a private company for these scans even though they form an integral part of the planning of their cancer treatment. Only a public outcry prevented this from occurring. Private hospitals rarely have access to high dependency or intensive care beds, despite administering treatments such as chemotherapy, which could result in life-threatening complications. There is no form of levy on them to support these facilities in the NHS, and so they can avoid the costs associated with this back-up provision for the surgery and treatments they provide.

As doctors, we are also seeing a shift in employment away from the NHS for multiple reasons. A recent BMA survey showed that nearly 50% of UK consultant physician vacancies remain unfilled.6 Working in the private sector often means clinicians have more pleasant work environments, welcome additional income, and are treated with more respect by hospital managers who need the profits derived from their patients.

The legacy of this for the future is likely to be a more opaque and uneven provision of medical care with a much higher inequality in access. Is this what we really want for our families and our society? With the major impact on public finances resulting from the pandemic, it is time to think carefully about our choices and influence.

Footnotes

  • This article was first posted on BJGP Life on 1 December 2020: https://bjgplife.com/two-tier

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2021

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Garside J,
    2. Neate R
    (May 4, 2020) UK government ‘using pandemic to transfer NHS duties to private sector’ The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/04/uk-government-using-crisis-to-transfer-nhs-duties-to-private-sector (accessed 14 Jan 2021).
  2. 2.↵
    1. GenesisCare
    (2020) UK clinician information: GenesisCare continues to treat without delay. https://www.genesiscare.com/uk/uk-clinician-information-genesiscare-continues-to-treat-without-delay (accessed 14 Jan 2021).
  3. 3.↵
    1. Royal College of Surgeons of England
    (2020) 4.3.2 private practice. https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/standards-and-research/gsp/domain-4/4-3-2-private-practice (accessed 14 Jan 2021).
  4. 4.↵
    1. Department of Health and Social Care
    (2020) Report of the independent inquiry into the issues raised by Paterson, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/paterson-inquiry-report (accessed 14 Jan 2021).
  5. 5.↵
    1. Lyons E
    (Sep, 2019) Churchill will keep Oxfordshire PET-CT scan service. Oxford Mail 3, https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/17878507.churchill-will-keep-oxfordshire-pet-ct-scan-service (accessed 14 Jan 2021).
  6. 6.↵
    1. Munro C
    (2020) Nearly half of advertised consultant physician posts left unfilled, census finds. BMJ 371, m4462.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 71 (703)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 71, Issue 703
February 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Two-tiered medicine: the increasing disparity in medical care in the UK
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Two-tiered medicine: the increasing disparity in medical care in the UK
Judith Dawson
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (703): 72. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp21X714737

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Two-tiered medicine: the increasing disparity in medical care in the UK
Judith Dawson
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (703): 72. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp21X714737
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • FUTURE INEQUALITY IN PROVISION
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Depreciating assets: the female experience of health in the UK
  • Yonder: Autism, home visits, suicidal ideation, and young sudden cardiac death
  • Bullying during COVID-19: the impact on child and adolescent health
Show more Life & Times

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242