WE’RE living in the age of weird.
Brexit, Covid, the war in Ukraine and populist Tory rule have created a Britain that would have seemed 15 years ago like a novelist’s satirical flight of fancy.
One impact is that we’ve all become accustomed to the abnormal. I don’t just mean wearing coats inside or cocking a bored eyebrow to hear the police are looking into another Prime Minister’s behaviour; I mean that in this skewed version of Britain we now inhabit, the poorly among us are getting used to triaging ourselves.
“Do not attend A&E unless it’s a genuine emergency,” we’ve been told ad nauseam in recent months. It doesn’t matter if you’re a data scientist, a retired janitor or a shop assistant, we all have to do our best doctor impressions and judge for ourselves if we’re sick enough to attend hospital. Is that abdominal pain anything to worry about? Is it OK for flesh wounds to go that colour?
We always have the wonderful NHS24 of course, but the choice of whether to attend casualty departments is ultimately ours and the message seems pretty clear: unless we’re having heart attacks or there is immediate risk to life or limb, pop a bit of Savlon on it and try the GP again in the morning.
Doctors and nurses’ leaders warned for years that the NHS was breaking, and now in the opinion of many, it finally has.
Politicians are to blame for dodging the difficult conversation about how sustainably to fund (and staff) the NHS when the population is ageing and treatment options proliferating.
Rebecca McQuillan: Are we at breaking point when it comes to tackling misogyny?
So let’s be magnanimous to Sajid Javid and say he’s trying to begin that conversation. The Tory former health secretary suggests that people could pay for visits to the GP (he cites the Norwegian example of £20 a visit) or to A&E (look! In Ireland they charge a “nominal” £66 if you turn up without a referral!)
He says the current model of British healthcare is “unsustainable” and talks about “protecting those on low incomes” (the Conservatives being so well known for that).
Downing Street responds that the Government is not “currently” considering the idea, a qualified statement that speaks volumes.
Well, we do need to think radical thoughts about NHS funding, don’t we? Yes we do, but there’s radical – and then there’s this. This isn’t just radical, it would effectively destroy the NHS as we know it. The NHS was founded and has operated for nearly 80 years on the principle that healthcare should be free at the point of delivery, providing equal access and quality of care to a countess and a cleaner.
Limited charging (the “contributory principle”, as Mr Javid euphemistically calls it) is not new – English patients pay for their prescriptions – but free access has always been preserved. Charging at the point of access would be like setting dynamite beneath its central pillar. It would be a health service, but not the NHS as we understand it.
Rebecca McQuillan: Sunak is no break with the past: he’s Cameron Mark II
This would amount to a tax on the sick. It would be a capitulation to inequality. Charges for GP and casualty visits would put off people who should be seen by a doctor and the charge would be liable to increase when the public finances were tight.
“Protecting those on low incomes”: how? What would be the criteria? It would need an expensive bureaucracy to police it and collect the cash, so how much would really be saved? What would become of those who required regular contact with their GP or A&E department, such as the elderly, those with chronic conditions, pregnant women and families with young children?
For more than two centuries The Herald has been delivering quality news and insightful commentary.
— The Herald (@heraldscotland) January 24, 2023
To celebrate our 240th anniversary, we’ve launched our lowest ever subscription offer – one year for just £24.https://t.co/v7nDp2BrP7 pic.twitter.com/KFMVyriX9T
The burning issue here is about fairness and whether people would still get timely medical help. How many would be deterred from visiting the doctor if they had to pay? We all know what impact a late diagnosis can have on cancer survival chances. Health inequalities, already scandalously wide, would only worsen.
These adverse human consequences are hardly the stuff of fantasy: they happen all over the world in systems where access to healthcare is mediated by credit cards.
Dr Ellen Welch, co-chair of the Doctors Association, wrote in Metro this week about her experience as a cruise ship doctor, where British passengers had to pay for consultations.
“I recall the elderly lady who shuffled to the nurse’s station on board the ship looking fairly well. She asked about the consultation fees and then decided against a visit,” she writes. “Twenty-four hours later the whole medical team was summoned over the Tannoy to her cabin, to find her in extremis from a condition that could have been prevented had we only seen her earlier.”
Rebecca McQuillan: 2023 will be about the battle between Labour and SNP
A few years ago, a highly experienced GP told me that it’s often the third, fourth or even fifth thing patients mention to him that they are really worried about. First comes the sore throat, secondly the oddly-shaped liver spot, followed by the request for eczema cream and only then the unexplained lump, bouts of breathlessness or suicidal thoughts. Some people delay GP visits because they fear what they might discover, others don’t want to “bother” busy doctors. There is a well-documented problem of getting men in particular to seek medical help.
The last thing we should be doing is putting up financial barriers.
The writ of UK politicians does not run to Scotland’s NHS, but we ignore this debate at our peril. We’re naïve if we think this conversation in England will not impact the debate here.
Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, writing in The Guardian, says the Tories are “testing the water for a different kind of NHS” in which private finance features. Brown would foresee under such a model the creation of a two-tier system in which the better off paid for private insurance. He warns that would be inefficient as well as inequitable.
Hospitals would run much more efficiently if we better funded and managed social care to prevent unnecessary stays in hospital and mass delayed discharge which creates queues at the front door.
So let’s have that conversation. Let’s consider a wealth tax or more cash for the NHS out of general taxation and national insurance. Let’s tackle the crisis in social care, but a till on the GP’s reception desk? Never that.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel