This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Homeopathy prescribing set to be blacklisted under NHS England plans

NHS England has said it is going to 'formally request' that the Government ban GPs from prescribing homeopathy.

In 2017, NHS England published guidance to stop prescriptions for 18 low clinical priority treatments including homeopathy given the lack of 'clear or robust evidence'.

In addition to existing guidelines, NHS England has now said it will 'formally' request the Department of Heath and Social Care (DHSC) to blacklist homeopathy to make sure available funding is better used.

If the DHSC go along with NHS England's recommendation, then homeopathy would no longer legally be prescribed in primary care settings. 

An NHS England spokesperson said: 'The NHS has issued guidance making it clear to GPs that homeopathy should not be prescribed, and to give further legal force to this we will now be formally requesting that the Department of Health blacklist it so that funds cannot be wasted in this way.'

A DH spokesperson said: 'We expect GPs to prescribe treatments for the clinical benefit of their patients. In line with the clinical evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy, NHS England issued guidance to prescribers on the use of various items of low clinical value, which has resulted in a decline of homeopathic prescribing in primary care of 52%.

'We will consider NHS England’s request and respond in due course but we would expect doctors to be following these guidelines already.'

GPC clinical policy lead Dr Andrew Green previously called on the Government to ban over-the-counter or low-value medicines, rather than having guidance alone, as this would be ‘wholly inadequate’ and could put GPs at risk of breaching their contracts.

There is already a blacklist of drugs that GPs may not prescribe, which appears under Schedule 1 of the 2004 GMS contract.

The list, which includes drugs that experts agreed had no clinical or therapeutic advantage over other cheaper drugs, was first set up in 1985 and no new items have been added since 2004.

Last year, the High Court rejected a legal challenge brought in by the British Homeopathic Association to overturn NHS England plans to no longer routinely fund homeopathy.

NHS England welcomed the court victory, with chief executive Simon Stevens calling the legal challenge ‘costly and spurious’ and stating that homeopathy is a ‘misuse of scarce NHS funds’.

This came after research found that over 2,700 homeopathy prescriptions were issued by GP practices between December 2016 and May 2017, costing a total of £36,532.

Meanwhile, researchers revealed that GPs are writing one million fewer prescriptions for low-priority treatments but that price hikes have led to a rise in the overall spending.

Related images

  • homeopathy getty images 505231078 580x387px

Readers' comments (26)

  • |Liberal Doctor | GP Partner/Principal|10 Apr 2019 11:15am

    So NHSE and NICE are now both vile authoritarians, some agreement there lol Homeopathy is hardly 'conventional' now, you're really pushing it. And you're using punitive action to threaten our individual autonomy? I'm sure you'll go places with that. Oh sure, doctors using homeopathy are in lowest bracket of indemnity insurance as there's no harm in drinking sterile water. I'm not debating the benefits of improved doctor patient consultations. Or that people shouldn't be able to PAY for what they want. I'm just contending that the taxpayer shouldn't be compelled to pay for it. As for your last throwaway comment, liberalism meant quite differently then, compared to what it has become now.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The United Kingdom has an obligation to respect and promote the right to freedom of expression and information as set out in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, amongst other international treaties.

    The proposals also risk breaking binding international law. The UK is a member of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And Article 19 states:

    1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

    2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

    and how are colleagues & NHS England not bound by all this?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Do good
    I don't agree with what you say but I defend absolutely your right to say it.
    Having said that I think everyone should calm down and have a nice glass of water.
    It does at least have some proven physiological benefits.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • |Do good | GP Partner/Principal|10 Apr 2019 1:59pm

    I'm not sure what you're going on about here. Nobody is saying you're not free to express your opinion, but as per "this right shall include freedom to seek, RECEIVE and impart information and ideas", anyone is also free to criticise it. Plus, it is clear that we don't live in a free-speech state. Just ask Tommy Robinson.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anyone who thinks this is about the money is very wrong or very disingenuous. This is an attempt to discredit homeopathy, nothing more and nothing less.

    The bottom line is that we still believe in this country that doctors are better placed than academics to make clinical decisions about their own patients. The doctor-patient relationship is vital. If a substantial minority of people in the UK (including Queen Elizabeth II and much of her family and corgies) use homeopathy and want it prescribed for them by medical doctors, then the NHS should most certainly fund these ecologically sound and highly inexpensive medicines although I'm prepared to debate whether the Royal corgies should have to pay for it themselves. The Swiss actually voted for this principle in a referendum and I believe a democratic vote here would not deny CAM for those patients who want it and whose NHS doctors would be prepared to prescribe it and take responsibility of their decisions. Last Thing: If you are going to make jokes about homeopathy here, can you please raise the standard and stop repeating very old and stale gags.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Christopher Ho I did NOT say that NHS or NICE or CCGs are vile. I may disagree with their recommendations but while they are only recommendations I can live with them. But to BLACKLIST (which is what is being suggested) is what would be foul authoritarianism.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • |Liberal Doctor | GP Partner/Principal|10 Apr 2019 3:36pm

    Of course its about the money, to ignore that is why 'liberalism' or more accurately, 'socialism' is currently so unpopular. 1. We're broke. 2. We want universal treatment, but we do not have infinite resources, result? we ration. For a 100 people to be prescribed homeopathic treatments maybe 1 or more elderly patients might not get their hip replacement before their death, or your mother might be denied life-saving new breast cancer treatment. By all means, doctors might be fine with their patients trying unproven treatments, but that doesn't mean it should be funded by the taxpayer, thankfully we still have some rational minds looking at cost effectiveness. If you're prepared to debate whether corgies should have to pay for themselves, then you're prepared to debate whether everyone should have to pay for themselves then. Unless you're saying just because someone wants something on the NHS, then they should get it (even the Queen!). Doctors can take medical responsibility for decisions sure, but not the responsibility for financial repercussions surely. I wonder what old and stale gags you're referring to... Blacklisting only results in the taxpayer stopping funding of it, its not denying people access to it privately. That's hardly authoritarianism, or you seriously don't know what true authoritarianism is.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It's quite clear to anybody disagreeing with you, Christopher Ho, that this issue is NOT about money. The figure is miniscule. In today's news is an article suggesting that psychotherapy can be effective in IBS - something obvious to holistic doctors for several decades. I believe homeopathy works but even those who think that it's the consultation quality and some sort of 'hypnosis' is the therapeutic ingredient, even then it would be cruel to act like this. Fact is that OUTCOME STUDIES show that people seeing homeopathic doctors do get better and it's cost effective. Another fact is that it appears to work on animals and yet another that in India there are over 350K qualified homeopathic practitioners and a minister in the government for homeopathy and CAM. And yet another is the Swiss decision to let the people decide for themselves on this issue - as opposed to being told they are deluded by people such as yourself.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • You don't seem to get the point either LD. I'm not saying people should be barred from accessing it. I'm saying the taxpayer shouldn't fund it. Religious circumcisions on the NHS make 100% of families who make their sons get it feel better. Cosmetic breast implants make 100% of women who get it feel better. Escorts on personal health budgets make 100% of those who receive them feel better. That's your argument - just because it makes someone feel better means the taxpayer should fund it.... I'm all for people deciding for themselves, and then fund it themselves. And you say its miniscule? Well, you know the immortal words via Tesco - every little helps :) Plus, its obvious to anyone who's not a socialist, that to you, it's always easier spending someone else's money. And via Margaret Thatcher - The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Oh by the way, the private sector provides most of the healthcare provision in India, not via the state or even insurance but straight out of the pockets of individuals. Just so you know.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say