Cataracts, hips, knees and tonsils: NHS begins rationing operations
Almost two-thirds of trusts affected as cuts bite
Thursday 28 July 2011
Latest in Health News
On Facebook
Life & Style blogs
Eating disorders: The blame game
The patient will blame his/herself. The parents will blame themselves. The tabloids blame the fashio...
Online House Hunter: Stamp duty deadline approaches…
Stamp duty relief on houses under £150,000 for First Time Buyers is coming to an end - but there's a...
Access denied: Eating Disorder treatments
Nobody should have to fight or get down on their knees and beg for help. Nobody should be told that ...
Hip replacements, cataract surgery and tonsil removal are among operations now being rationed in a bid to save the NHS money.
Two-thirds of health trusts in England are rationing treatments for "non-urgent" conditions as part of the drive to reduce costs in the NHS by £20bn over the next four years. One in three primary-care trusts (PCTs) has expanded the list of procedures it will restrict funding to in the past 12 months.
Examples of the rationing now being used include:
* Hip and knee replacements only being allowed where patients are in severe pain. Overweight patients will be made to lose weight before being considered for an operation.
* Cataract operations being withheld from patients until their sight problems "substantially" affect their ability to work.
* Patients with varicose veins only being operated on if they are suffering "chronic continuous pain", ulceration or bleeding.
* Tonsillectomy (removing tonsils) only to be carried out in children if they have had seven bouts of tonsillitis in the previous year.
* Grommets to improve hearing in children only being inserted in "exceptional circumstances" and after monitoring for six months.
* Funding has also been cut in some areas for IVF treatment on the NHS.
The alarming figures emerged from a survey of 111 PCTs by the health-service magazine GP, using the Freedom of Information Act.
Doctors are known to be concerned about how the new rationing is working – and how it will affect their relationships with patients.
Birmingham is looking at reducing operations in gastroenterology, gynaecology, dermatology and orthopaedics. Parts of east London were among the first to introduce rationing, where some patients are being referred for homeopathic treatments instead of conventional treatment.
Medway had deferred treatment for non-urgent procedures this year while Dorset is "looking at reducing the levels of limited effectiveness procedures".
Chris Naylor, a senior researcher at the health think tank the King's Fund, said the rationing decisions being made by PCTs were a consequence of the savings the NHS was being asked to find.
"Blunt approaches like seeking an overall reduction in local referral rates may backfire, by reducing necessary referrals – which is not good for patients and may fail to save money in the long run," he said. "There are always rationing decisions that have to go on in any health service. But at the moment healthcare organisations are under more pressure than they have been for a long time and this is a sign of what is happening across many areas of the NHS."
According to responses from the 111 trusts to freedom-of-information requests, 64 per cent of them have now introduced rationing policies for non-urgent treatments and those of limited clinical value. Of those PCTs that have not introduced restrictions, a third are working with GPs to reduce referrals or have put in place peer-review systems to assess referrals.
In the last year, 35 per cent of PCTs have added procedures to lists of treatments they no longer fund because they deem them to be non-urgent or of limited clinical value.
Some trusts expect to save over £1m by restricting referrals from GPs.
Chaand Nagpaul, a member of the British Medical Association's GPs committee, said he was concerned about PCTs applying different low-priority thresholds and rationing access to treatments on the basis of local policies.
He said the Government needed to decide on a consistent set of national standards of "low priority" treatments to help remove post-code lotteries in provision. "Patients and the public recognise that with limited resources we need to make the maximum health gains and so there needs to be prioritisation. What is inequitable is that different PCTs are applying different thresholds and criteria," he said.
A Department of Health spokesman said: "Decisions on the appropriate treatments should be made by clinicians in the local NHS in line with the best available clinical evidence and Nice [National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence] guidance. There should be no blanket bans because what is suitable for one patient may not be suitable for another."
Bill Walters, 75, from Berkshire, recently had to wait 30 weeks for a hip operation instead of the standard 18. "I believe that the Government is doing this totally the wrong way," he said.
Case study: 'They changed the rules to save money'
Anne Ball, 71, is a retired business consultant who used to work in electronics
"I have bilateral cataracts and under the original NHS criteria I was entitled to have at least one of mine treated – but then the West Sussex health authorities decided to change the threshold level to save money.
"It's like looking through gauze. Everything is foggy, and I've got quite a large 'floater' in my left eye. The consultant was as distressed as me, having to tell me, and he thought with my eyesight he wouldn't be able to function.
"I've appealed because the cataracts are having a significant impact on my quality of life and it's left me depressed and fearful about my low vision, which will continue to deteriorate. The new guidelines mean that people who fall below the standard set by the DVLA still do not qualify to have surgery. My vision is not good enough to drive at night.
"I'm not a cranky old lady. I'm the chair of a local village charity and I do a lot of computer work that is affected.
"It will just store up costs for future years, putting a strain on resources as more patients will end up in falls clinics. The longer you put it off the more complex the operation becomes and the riskier it is for the patient."
Rob Hastings
- 1 Can we pull the plug on the plug?
- 2 Emma Watson: The girl with the magic touch
- 3 The Ten Best Scotch Whiskies
- 4 The Ten Best Places In The World To Be Gay
- 5 NHS may need emergency cash bailout
- 6 'There was someone who needed it...' 60 lives, 30 kidneys, all linked in longest donor chain
- 7 Menswear finds its swagger to escape role as poor relation of British fashion
- 1 How an A-grade prank by a hacker closed a school for a day
- 2 Last bow for Blur at Brit awards?
- 3 Copenhagen, probably the best city in the world
- 4 How did a man buried in this frozen car for two months come out of it alive?
- 5 The sci-fi movie Hollywood would not dare to make
- 6 Ian McKellen: What's wrong with us? Should we not aspire to happiness?
- 7 Aborted baby lived 45 minutes
- 8 Manx court sentences man to be hanged
- 9 Robert Fisk: 'If only Hague and Clinton would listen to Yusuf Islam'
- 10 Journalists killed in Syria rocket strike 'were targeted'
Win an adventure with Subaru XV
Enjoy a three-night family adventure for four to Slaley Hall in Northumberland.
Delivering network infrastructure for London 2012
Cisco is maximising connectivity for the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Free trial of our new iPad app
Get your daily dose of the best of British journalism, sponsored by American Airlines
Amazing restaurant offers
Three glasses of free champagne and a special menu at 46 top London restaurants.
Latest Independent competitions
Win anything from gadgets to five-star holidays on our competitions and offers page.
Commercial thought leaders
Watch the best in the business world give their insights into the world of business.
Career Services
Day In a Page
Science vs God
The hard labour behind soft drinks
Aspiring Hestons can now make their own molecular meals
Is it time to pass on glass when serving wine?
Robin Hood Gardens: An estate worth saving?
Putin election rally: All the president's men?




Comments