This site is intended for health professionals only
Wednesday 23 May 2012
Facebook Twiter Linkedin

Evidence of 'two-tier NHS' as private sector treat healthier patients

By Edward Davie | 20 Oct 2011

Patients seen by independent treatment centres (ISTCs) tend to be younger, in better health before their operation and from more affluent areas than those seen by NHS hospitals, new research has shown.

GP leaders said the study by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine supported fears that the private sector was ‘cherry-picking' easier work and leaving the NHS to deal with the more complex and costly operations, and warned of a ‘two-tier NHS' is developing.

The research, led by Professor Jan van der Meulen at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, found that ISTCs were typically treating a ‘favourable case mix profile'.

The BMJ study compared characteristics of patients and outcomes after elective surgery in ISTCs with those undertaken by NHS providers, and looked at patients undergoing hip or knee replacement, hernia repair, or surgery for varicose veins in 25 ISTCs and 72 NHS centres.

Patients in ISTCs were healthier than those in NHS centres, had less severe symptoms, and were more affluent, the research found.

After adjusting for these differences, patients undergoing joint replacements in an ISTC had slightly better outcomes than patients treated in NHS centres in terms of symptoms, disability and health related quality of life. However, the researchers stress that such differences were minor and unlikely to be clinically significant.

There were no significant differences in outcomes after surgery for hernia repair or varicose veins. 

Professor van der Meulen told Pulse: ‘We found that ISTC patients tended to have less severe symptoms and that they more often came from more affluent areas. ISTCs were expected to treat patients with a more favourable case mix profile and this is in line with their contracts.'

Critics have argued that contracting arrangements favour private providers who only take on the simpler work – for example many would not treat NHS patients with mental health conditions for example.

The GPC told Pulse the study was evidence of the development of a ‘two-tier NHS'.

GPC deputy chair and Leeds GP Dr Richard Vautrey said: ‘This is clear evidence of a two tier NHS developing, with one service for the relatively fit and well and another service for the elderly, vulnerable or those with more complex problems.'

‘This is something the BMA has repeatedly warned about and is one of the reasons we continue to have significant concerns about the health bill.'

READERS' COMMENTS

Anonymous, GP Partner,
20 Oct 2011
This isn't news. we all know this. Do these researchers not know the rules?? Our local ISTC WON'T ACCEPT patient who are an "anaesthetic risk" ie BMI > 40 as well as other "risks". They argue that they don't have an ITU. All higher risk patients are REFUSED and MUST be referred to the local General Hospital which is the default option.
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, Other NHS,
20 Oct 2011
This has always been the case, ever since the NHS went into high volume ISTC contracts in the early Zero's. The DH was told about this before contracts were negotiated, during negotiations and after when they had the gall to question why no-one was using them.

Why do researchers persist in researching things that have been proven many years before - seems to happen in lots of areas
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, Other nurse,
20 Oct 2011
I agree with the anonymous GP partner - how much money was wasted on this research? ISTC's are renowned for cherry picking their patients, it isnt purely about the lack of critical care facilities as they will just utilise the ones in the NHS anway - it is more to do with pts having an extended length of stay which will block their beds and result in a lack of income. so for the foreseeable future Mrs Jones from the not so affluent council estate with the BMI >40 with her elective bilateral knee replacements will continue to utilise the local DGH - block the bed - and lead to more pts being seen in the ISTC - and the cogs keep turning - hey ho!!
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, Other healthcare professional,
20 Oct 2011
Hold on - we're missing the big picture here. what aboutt?

'After adjusting for these differences, patients undergoing joint replacements in an ISTC had slightly better outcomes than patients treated in NHS centres in terms of symptoms, disability and health related quality of life.
Average (2Votes)
Top
Anonymous, GP Partner,
20 Oct 2011
One way to save money would be to get the researchers seeing patients rather than wasting time and resources doing pointless research to prove what everybody already knows. How about researching something else daft-eg do deaf patients have more problems communicating than those who aren't deaf or do alcoholic patients have worse post-operative outcomes than say athletes??
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, Practice Manager,
20 Oct 2011
Surely GPs have this in their own hands as it is they who refer to ISTCs. Andrew Lansley has clearly stated that there will be no cherrypicking so surely it is in order not to refer to any organisation which does cherry pick.
Average (3Votes)
Top
Anonymous, Other healthcare professional,
20 Oct 2011
@anonymous other healthcare professional

"Hold on - we're missing the big picture here. what aboutt?
'After adjusting for these differences, patients undergoing joint replacements in an ISTC had slightly better outcomes than patients treated in NHS centres in terms of symptoms, disability and health related quality of life."

What it says are minor differences that are unlikely to be clinically significant. What are they adjusting for? Age and affluence and BMI or general health at admission. A higher health Input level will result in a higher health outcome level. How are the measuring outcomes as a flat measure or in terms of improvements in health from before and after treatment?

This is the great fudge in outcome measures. If you are looking for patients not to come out disabled then all may come outthat way or are you looking for a health improvement Before v After treatment? Better General Health going in = better general health coming out but the area of treatment may be no better at all?

it is a completely skewed demographic and when something goes wrong in an ISTC who picks up the pieces and the costs - DGHs.

To send people into ISTC at their higher cost per patient seems to be totally against the health bill as it shows no clinically significant outcome. in effect the ISTC are cherry picking the easiest cases to deal with and not showing the level of outomes that you would expect from such a 'fit' cohort of patients. It would seem that DGH are clearly better value for money if we look purely at outcomes.

This is evidence that could be used to remove the ridiculous idea of 'competition' in the Bill! As everyone knows privatisation and 'competition' in the rail industry, power industries has not resulted in profit from lower price and cost efficiency but merely inflated profits at a much higher prices even when costs go down. If profit margins from operations rose from £25 per patient to £125 per patient (as in the power industry) how would that affect CCG/practices budgets and ultimately their performance and ability to treat patients?
Average (1Vote)
Top

ADD YOUR COMMENTS

Please note You must be a registered user of PulseToday and logged in to add comments. Opinions expressed below are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of PulseToday. Comments are considered in the public domain and may be used in future Pulse coverage. We accept no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for the accuracy or the content of member comments.

Comment*

You must be logged in to add a comment.Clickhere to login.

SIGN UP FOR EMAIL NEWSLETTERS

Keep up-to-date with the latest changes to the NHS, CPD and clinical guidelines. Sign up below or find out more.

POLL

Is self-care the answer to the NHS efficiency drive? Read the full story here