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.
Dr Salisbury is right to have reservations about this proposal to get doctors involved in assessing patients' eligibility "for a prescription for money off their fuel bills"; it is outlandish in the mere idea of it and considering it originates from the Treasury, this may not be a political initiative but a civil service brainstorm to abdicate responsibility (and blame) to other easy targets.
Notwithstanding the current pandemic (which is still raging but just not in the media as much with very little restriction on movement) causing unprecedented demand and pressure on primary care, the idea that the GP becomes the direct gatekeeper (and the barrier) to financial gains rather than providing (and guiding through) healthcare services creates an unhealthy and potentially less-than-honest interaction with patients trying to access these monies.
We don't have to go far to know how these "consultations for cash" will turn out; just look at the medico-legal or workers' compensation assessment process and that's without involving a therapeutic relationship.
Furthermore, although the Treasury may attempt to tie-in certain health conditions as a prerequisite for these benefits, the fact is many chronic health conditions are stable and requiring regular but not frequent monitoring. By making the GP consultation part of the eligibility process, it would result in patients making appointments to see their GP purely for administrative purposes to apply for the scheme, certainly an unnecessary pressure on the primary care system already overstretched with waning numbers of experienced doctors despite record numbers of local medical graduates.
Perhaps it is the reflection of the Civil Service's contempt or low regard for the GP, seen as just another underling civil servant at the beck and call of the Civil Service mandarins running the government. I wonder if the proposal to put most (if not all) GPs in a salaried position, rather than a contractor arrangement, made these initiative worse but actually made it possible with GPs being, in effect, paid employees.
These ideas from the Treasury may be musings rather than serious proposals, but the BMA and other GP organisations need to nip this in the bud and send a clear message that ensures this thought bubble goes no further.
We need to stamp on this hot potato proposal right now
Dear Editors
Dr Salisbury is right to have reservations about this proposal to get doctors involved in assessing patients' eligibility "for a prescription for money off their fuel bills"; it is outlandish in the mere idea of it and considering it originates from the Treasury, this may not be a political initiative but a civil service brainstorm to abdicate responsibility (and blame) to other easy targets.
Notwithstanding the current pandemic (which is still raging but just not in the media as much with very little restriction on movement) causing unprecedented demand and pressure on primary care, the idea that the GP becomes the direct gatekeeper (and the barrier) to financial gains rather than providing (and guiding through) healthcare services creates an unhealthy and potentially less-than-honest interaction with patients trying to access these monies.
We don't have to go far to know how these "consultations for cash" will turn out; just look at the medico-legal or workers' compensation assessment process and that's without involving a therapeutic relationship.
Furthermore, although the Treasury may attempt to tie-in certain health conditions as a prerequisite for these benefits, the fact is many chronic health conditions are stable and requiring regular but not frequent monitoring. By making the GP consultation part of the eligibility process, it would result in patients making appointments to see their GP purely for administrative purposes to apply for the scheme, certainly an unnecessary pressure on the primary care system already overstretched with waning numbers of experienced doctors despite record numbers of local medical graduates.
Perhaps it is the reflection of the Civil Service's contempt or low regard for the GP, seen as just another underling civil servant at the beck and call of the Civil Service mandarins running the government. I wonder if the proposal to put most (if not all) GPs in a salaried position, rather than a contractor arrangement, made these initiative worse but actually made it possible with GPs being, in effect, paid employees.
These ideas from the Treasury may be musings rather than serious proposals, but the BMA and other GP organisations need to nip this in the bud and send a clear message that ensures this thought bubble goes no further.
Competing interests: No competing interests