This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

Gold, incentives and meh

Revealed: NHS funding splashed on holidays, games consoles and summer houses

Exclusive Millions of pounds of NHS funding have been spent on luxury goods such as summer houses, holidays and pedalo boats, under a scheme to give patients ‘personal health budgets’.

A Pulse investigation found that the scheme to give ‘patients more control over their care’ has been used to buy many unevidenced treatments at the expense of long-established services, which have been defunded.

Information obtained under a Freedom of Information Act shows that CCGs in England predict spend of over £120m this year for 4,800 patients on the personal health budgets scheme.

CCGs reported the following services were bought by patients on the scheme:

  • NHS Nene CCG and NHS Corby CCG gave patient funds to have a holiday to rest and reconnect with family, an iRobot, and the construction of a summer house;
  • NHS Kernow CCG spent £2,080 on a patient’s aromatherapy, £248 on horse riding lessons and even spent money for a patient to hire a pedalo;
  • NHS Stoke CCG spent money on a Wii Fit games console for a patient, and £1,000 on a patient’s weekly music lessons.

Since October last year, all eligible patients have had the right to hold a personal health budget, which allows them to spend NHS cash as they wish. NHS England’s Five Year Forward View has called for a ‘major expansion’ of the scheme.

But experts have been scathing, as NHS England estimates it needs at least £20bn in efficiency savings to stand still by 2020. 

Pulse has learnt that personal health budgets are beginning to destabilise existing services, with one mental health service having to close its doors due to its funding being ploughed into the scheme.

Dr Richard Vautrey, deputy chair of the GPC, says personal health budgets can have a ‘very big impact on existing services’.

He said: ‘Quite often they are working within  limited margins and so loss of even a small amount of their income can jeopardise a whole service – so this can have serious implications for large numbers of people just based on the whims of a small number.’

Professor Nick Watson, professor of health and wellbeing at the University of Glasgow, said the scheme was ‘consumerist’.

He said: ‘I think that we are going forward on poor evidence and there is a clear ideological drive behind it.’

But an NHS England spokesperson said: ‘Personal health budgets are designed to meet identified health needs in ways that give patients more control over the care and support they receive. The spending must be agreed between the individual and the NHS, meet the patients individual health needs and achieve the desired outcomes.’

The policy has been plagued with controversy from its inception. Initial pilots for the scheme, launched in 2009, gave patients an upfront pot of money – either as a direct payment or a ‘notional’ budget held by the CCG or other independent party – for them to spend on services as they chose.

An independent evaluation of the personal budget pilots – led by the Personal Social Services Research Unit at the University of Kent – found there was a significant improvement in the quality of life and psychological wellbeing of the patients and a reduction in hospital costs.

However, it also found patients used significantly more non-NHS services as result of using the personal budgets, and that money was spent on theatre tickets and ready meals.

Readers' comments (41)

  • Umm...again...why the shock horror headline. It was never going to be used for anything to with the patients health. If there is a bottomless pit of funding of health care (i.e the NHS), anything given will NOT be spent on something that is freely available. no surprises folks for this disastrously thought out "bright" idea. now will someone pull the plug on this..no...great. And one wonders why there is no real money to employ nurse/pharmacists/real doctors (not noctors) to do the proper job.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Of course what do you expect??
    This is EXACTLY what socialism promotes? Why? Because it's other people's money that's why!! Things won't change and it shows it's not just out politicians! Look at how the "benefit street" chavs spend YOUR money on nice TVs and track suits!! And these same people think YOU as medical professionals belong to them as well...... Socialism in its virulent British form means ska very and indentured servitude forever.
    Get used to it doctors.............unless you've got the guys to walk away you can't complain...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Absolutely ridiculous.Health service should wake up

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • this is what happens when you pursue 'patient-centredness'

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is utterly bonkers of course, but NHS E and HMG seen totally wedded to the idea. One has to consider why.

    I think this is another trojan horse for privatisation.

    Today, it's theatre tickets and laptops. In a couple of years it will be for specialist outpatient appointments. And then everything...

    BTW I'm not against privatisation, I think doctors will do relatively well out of it, but let's be honest...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Someone did once say "its very easy to spend OTHER Peoples money". Watch it in motion.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This will not stop unless someone asks politician to justify it on high profile media. It's an easy vote winning act and equivalent of offering cash for votes.

    Sadly some "doctors" also believe in this - we had an ex-psych consultant, now working for private sector posting here stating this is an excellent idea.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Spent 9 years in USSR but the level of Communism in this country surpasses imagination. If somebody doesn't get benefits, all he/she has to do is go up Rochester bridge and threaten to commit suicicde. The next day you give them a mobile phone so they can be in touch, arrange urgent housing, carers, schools for their children and everything else any other mortal would have to work for.
    Numbers of such incidents have g4rossly risen with tightening of the benefit system.
    I could wager that Marx and Engels are probably discussing that they had to have a revolution to impose communism in USSR but in UK they didn't have to lift a finger - it's unfolding spontaneoulsy due the follies of our policy makers.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • BTW, till HMG mature to the idea of liquidating NHSE which takes up £2 billion of the NHS budget every year, there is not going to be any improvement.
    Unfortunately,NHSE was created to do the 'dirty work' for the government so it has the mandate to do things which to us may seem stupid and grotesque'. And if the savings are not made, they'll just screw the NHS a bit harder:)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Sanjeev Juneja GP Partner | 01 September 2015 10:22am

    Absolutely spot on.Have you ever wondered why this country is so fixated with the past?Because it has nothing to look forward to.It sank along time ago and now everyone is a bum

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This policy means that the majority suffers for individual gain.
    Who will actually say no to a patient 'reasonably' asking for an Xbox to improve their quality of life? But where has the funds for this come from?- perhaps a drop in centre that many use and now has to close or reduce hours/ staff.
    What happens when the patients budget runs out? Will someone say "well you've spent all your money so no more services for you"? What if they then threaten to sue the authorities for letting them make a ridiculous decision? Or they threaten suicide?
    There has been no thought given to the unintended consequences of this.
    Of course this is a step towards privatisation. Privatisation will ALWAYS cost more because of the bureaucracy involved and shareholders to pay. End of.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This right-wing publication and dog-whistle-style journalism are getting roasted at the Guardian. Seriously - can you not provide some context when reporting these sensationalist stories?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • for some it pays to be ill in nhs. there may be lots of cheats pretending to suffering from deprssion and benefit system does not allow them to say "i am feeling better"
    personal budget should be given if they agree to go back to work. there should be maximum amount of £500 for most needy.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There was that bloke Lansley, he blew £2 billion on an ego trip. It worked well.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been moderated

  • Has anyone done the basic arithmatic - each person (on average) was given £25,000 - that is more than many people earn. (from the figures above)
    I still want to know what happens when the money runs out - break down - reassessemnt and another £25k??

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • PS this reminds me of the patient who went to the food bank regualalry so he could save for a new 48" HD TV

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "each person (on average) was given £25,000 - that is more than many people earn."

    A lot of the money will be spent on providing carers for people who need full time care - but Pulse won't tell you that as it doesn't fit with its agenda.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Another ploy to destabalise services and lead to privatisation!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A free for all approach, we'll give you the money as long as you don't bother us!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The NHS has never really adopted the WHO definition of health

    Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

    Perhaps if it did some of these so-called luxuries might not seem so outlandish.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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

Have your say