Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The first two examples of adding layers of less qualified staff for
orthopaedic and respiratory conditions just seems wasteful duplication.
However the third example of the denied varicose vein surgery leaves me
puzzled and confused.
Surely, if vein surgery is a treatment option Dr Jenkins should be
explaining all treatment options to the patient and the patient will
choose the one that is likely to be most acceptable and effective?
What possible motive could Dr Jenkins have to deny the patient
treatment or to wish that the local health authority would do this on his
behalf?
What possible good can come from a patient registered with Dr Jenkins
being denied access to treatment, while this would be available if they
were registered with Dr Beerstecher? If a patient has contributed equally
should they not expect equal coverage, wherever they happen to live?
Patients are making contributions to the national insurance. The
insurer determines coverage and should make treatment available equitably.
In the UK the great advantage is that the insurer and the patients are the
same and are best placed to decide what value to choose for what money
paid; fairly and openly.
Competition is not the issue.
Dear editor,
The first two examples of adding layers of less qualified staff for
orthopaedic and respiratory conditions just seems wasteful duplication.
However the third example of the denied varicose vein surgery leaves me
puzzled and confused.
Surely, if vein surgery is a treatment option Dr Jenkins should be
explaining all treatment options to the patient and the patient will
choose the one that is likely to be most acceptable and effective?
What possible motive could Dr Jenkins have to deny the patient
treatment or to wish that the local health authority would do this on his
behalf?
What possible good can come from a patient registered with Dr Jenkins
being denied access to treatment, while this would be available if they
were registered with Dr Beerstecher? If a patient has contributed equally
should they not expect equal coverage, wherever they happen to live?
Patients are making contributions to the national insurance. The
insurer determines coverage and should make treatment available equitably.
In the UK the great advantage is that the insurer and the patients are the
same and are best placed to decide what value to choose for what money
paid; fairly and openly.
Competing interests: No competing interests