This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pul jul aug2020 cover 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

Independents' Day

GPs face cap on number of vasectomy referrals

Exclusive GPs have been told they can only refer a limited number of patients to undergo vasectomy under plans to cut referral costs, Pulse can reveal.

Practices in Basildon and Brentwood CCG have been told they face a cap on how many GP referrals for vasectomy they can make in 2015/16, with three practices told they can refer just one patient each this year.

In a leaked letter, the CCG said it had made the decision after reviewing past ‘activity and spend’ on vasectomy services.

But GP leaders said the move was ridiculous and the CCG should consider reversing the plan.

The letter, dated 23 April, stated: ‘The CCG’s clinical executive committee has today reviewed the CCG’s activity and spend in relation to vasectomy services. Following this review the CCG clinical executive has taken the decision to cap the number of referrals for vasectomies each member practice can make.’

It added: ‘Please note that with immediate effect, CCG member practices can only refer to one of the CCG’s contracted providers of vasectomy services, and CEG have agreed that the number of reerrals will be capped.’

An accompanying list details the number of vasectomies each practice is permitted to refer in 2015/16 – ranging from one to 11 per practice.

It comes as CCGs in several areas are known to be drawing up plans to ration services such as hip and knee surgery, although Devon commissioners recently backed down on plans to restrict access to routine surgery for obese patients and smokers, and to ration hearing aids, following protests.

Dr Richard Vautrey, deputy chair of the GPC, said the CCG was risking unwanted pregnancies for the sake of a ‘few pounds’.

Dr Vautrey said: ‘This is a ridiculous short-term decision that could have huge long-term emotional and financial consequences to both families in the area that the CCG serves and to the wider NHS as other services have to pick up the pieces.

‘For the sake of saving a few pounds the CCG is taking the risk of a rise in unwanted pregnancies and all that means for individuals and families and they should seriously consider reversing this decision.’

Dr John Chisholm, former GPC chair and president of the Men’s Health Forum, agreed the approach could not be justified on clinical or cost-efficiency grounds.

Dr Chisholm said: ‘I believe it’s an inappropriate and wrong-headed decision that is neither in the interests of patient nor of GPs’ clinical decision making. At the worst obviously it could result in an unwanted pregnancy which would itself have undesirable consequences.

He added that the financial savings involved ‘would likely be pretty tiny’.

‘All CCGs are facing difficult decisions, nonetheless I think CCGs need to be concentrating on inappropriate use of resources and referrals rather than try to cap completely appropriate referrals,’ Dr Chisholm said.

Basildon and Brentwood CCG said in a statement: ‘The CCG has difficult decisions to make to ensure that it meets its statutory obligations. The decision has been taken to cap this years’ spend at the 2014-15 level. The number of referrals that each practice can make is based on their list size.

‘Referrals can be made to providers who were successful in obtaining a contract with the CCG following an open procurement process last year.’

Readers' comments (19)

  • There is going to now be a massive and sustained bombardment of General Practice by Hunt and his "dangerous pet" THE DAILY NUTTER-they want now to implement a "final solution" to the "GP problem"

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There will be a political "burning of the GP contract" has been decided that we are now a "pest" that has been a "thorn" too long.
    I just wish we could all "dig a tunnel to professional freedom".

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vasectomies are cheaper than child benefit payments for unwanted children.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • GPs don't face a cap - rephrase it 'patients face a cap'...oh but one might stir up an electorate revolt. Blame the GP then. This not infringement on the holy equality & diversity mantra????? Hippocracy at its finest.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • You are obliged to refer when clinically appropriate. I would just simply ignore the cap and keep referring and leave the '(de)-commissioners' to deal with the fall out from refusal.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • CCGs are putting a dutch cap on referrals? I'm re-coiling in horror at the suggestion of this. This would be a bitter pill to swallow for many patients. I think we should prophylactic-ally write to our CCGs to stop them from doing this - we should firmly implant the notion that we won't tolerate this.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The unkindest cut of all!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I guess the assumption is that - in lieu of NHS referral the locals will pop into the Nuffield / Hartswood or Marie Stopes privately. the average house price in Brentwood is such that they need to protect their income from extra children to keep a roof .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Are these people in the real world? I have to seriously ask myself whether they are fit to 'run' a CCG!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say