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.
"Health is merely a commodity and, as such, has a price" [1] and no doubt, as with any other commodity available to us to buy, you get what you pay for. There is some variation, as not always the most priced services are the best, but in an open market, customers will be moved away and the price of the product will go down for the company to be able to continue to float. This not the NHS model.
We have been educated to be aware of the inverse care law ("The availability of good medical care tends to vary inversely with the need for it in the population served" [2]). Unfortunately nothing is changing.
The NHS is a false open economy, and there are many irregularities within it, in the way for example practices are paid per patient in their lists. At a time where cuts on services are widespread, and where the social and health components of our services are under the microscope to reduce expenditure, this article reminds us that we are perpetuating the inequality of these provisions, as there is a systemic failure to try to solve a basic principle, to put more effort in, give more support to those practices working in the most deprived areas, where attracting good clinical staff is harder as they are generally worse paid and more overstretched in their duties, where the levels of personal satisfaction cannot be achieved realising the impossible task of improving the health of a community already condemned.
If the CQC effect on their verdicts was to attract the desperate additional funding they need, it would be worthwhile. If the only effect is to mark them as inadequate, I doubt morale, job satisfaction and recruitment are going to be any better
References:
1. Health care systems for the 21st century. BMJ, 10 May 1997, Vol.314(7091), p.1407
2. Hart, J T. The inverse care law. Lancet, 27 February 1971, Vol.1(7696), pp.405-12
Competing interests:
A GP in a not so well funded practice
Re: GP practices rated “outstanding” are better funded, BMA research finds
"Health is merely a commodity and, as such, has a price" [1] and no doubt, as with any other commodity available to us to buy, you get what you pay for. There is some variation, as not always the most priced services are the best, but in an open market, customers will be moved away and the price of the product will go down for the company to be able to continue to float. This not the NHS model.
We have been educated to be aware of the inverse care law ("The availability of good medical care tends to vary inversely with the need for it in the population served" [2]). Unfortunately nothing is changing.
The NHS is a false open economy, and there are many irregularities within it, in the way for example practices are paid per patient in their lists. At a time where cuts on services are widespread, and where the social and health components of our services are under the microscope to reduce expenditure, this article reminds us that we are perpetuating the inequality of these provisions, as there is a systemic failure to try to solve a basic principle, to put more effort in, give more support to those practices working in the most deprived areas, where attracting good clinical staff is harder as they are generally worse paid and more overstretched in their duties, where the levels of personal satisfaction cannot be achieved realising the impossible task of improving the health of a community already condemned.
If the CQC effect on their verdicts was to attract the desperate additional funding they need, it would be worthwhile. If the only effect is to mark them as inadequate, I doubt morale, job satisfaction and recruitment are going to be any better
References:
1. Health care systems for the 21st century. BMJ, 10 May 1997, Vol.314(7091), p.1407
2. Hart, J T. The inverse care law. Lancet, 27 February 1971, Vol.1(7696), pp.405-12
Competing interests: A GP in a not so well funded practice