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 opinion piece by Jani and Gray makes many excellent points. Good use of the resources we have available is essential if we want to improve health outcomes and reduce inequalities. However, the piece starts off with a premise (the UK has no more money) that needs further debate. Countries that issue their own currencies (including the UK, USA, Japan, Australia) can not really run of of money. Governments may need to borrow but usually that borrowing is from within the country itself - if the government deficit increases its must mean that credits increase on the other side of the country's balance sheet. (Borrowing from outside the country is different though.) Furthermore, the link between tax and spending is not obvious - even if mainstream media would suggest it is. There are many economists who regard tax more as a mechanism for controlling inflation and reducing inequalities than necessarily as a means to fund spending. There is far more scope to increase spending on health and social care than we might think.
Re: The NHS must focus on resource optimisation, not lobbying for more money
Dear Editor
The opinion piece by Jani and Gray makes many excellent points. Good use of the resources we have available is essential if we want to improve health outcomes and reduce inequalities. However, the piece starts off with a premise (the UK has no more money) that needs further debate. Countries that issue their own currencies (including the UK, USA, Japan, Australia) can not really run of of money. Governments may need to borrow but usually that borrowing is from within the country itself - if the government deficit increases its must mean that credits increase on the other side of the country's balance sheet. (Borrowing from outside the country is different though.) Furthermore, the link between tax and spending is not obvious - even if mainstream media would suggest it is. There are many economists who regard tax more as a mechanism for controlling inflation and reducing inequalities than necessarily as a means to fund spending. There is far more scope to increase spending on health and social care than we might think.
Competing interests: No competing interests