This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

CAMHS won't see you now

No more 'wishy washy rubbish' - clear guidance on migrants’ rights to use the NHS is long overdue

  • Print
  • 11
  • Save

There was plenty of coverage in the national press over the weekend of Jeremy Hunt’s forthcoming announcement over migrants access to the NHS – and not for the first time.

In fact, getting tough on immigrants abusing the NHS’ popularity is such an apparent no-brainer vote-winner that it seems to have been trailed on an almost weekly basis this year. In the Daily Mail alone we had immigration minister Mark Harper talking tough to Romanians and Bulgarians in January, David Cameron insisting those from outside the EU should pay for using British hospitals in February, then the suggestion British patients could have to carry an NHS ‘entitlement card’ in March, followed by home secretary Theresa May and the Prime Minister once again weighing in. Clearly it’s a policy far too popular to only have been announced once.

But while the review has been in the pipeline for months, if not years, it seems it is now finally here and will be trailed no more – Mr Hunt is scheduled to reveal details of his plans in the House of Commons on Wednesday.

His announcement is likely to divide the profession.

Many GPs have an instinctive reluctance to get involved in checking patients’ entitlement to care. As GPC deputy chair Dr Richard Vautrey puts it: ‘Doctors are many things. They must not become immigration officers and border guards.’ Others feel that denying care to a patient in need, regardless of their nationality, is not what they went into medicine for in the first place. 

But equally many grassroots GPs have frontline experience of some patients who should not be entitled to care taking advantage, and would like to see the rules tightened up. In fact, these GPs are in the majority. A Pulse survey in January found that 52% of GPs believe NHS provision for migrants is too generous, and only 7% believe it is not generous enough. As Dr Paul Roblin, chair of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire LMC told Pulse then: ‘GPs are expected to practise with limited healthcare funding and if we are using that money for treating visitors, the taxpayer loses out.’

One thing nearly everyone is agreed on though, is that whatever the rules are, they need to be published and made clear.

Currently the rules around migrants’ access to both primary and secondary care are a minefield, with extensive and often contradictory guidance unequally applied.

According to NHS Primary Care Commissioning guidance for instance, ‘overseas visitors, whether lawfully in the UK or not, are eligible to register with a GP practice even if those visitors are not eligible for secondary care services’. GPs are allowed if they wish to ask patients to prove their immigration status – although there is no formal requirement for them to do so – but if they do, they must ask every patient.

Some patients may be entitled to free primary but not secondary care, leading to tricky questions over what to do with patients who badly need essential yet non-urgent hospital treatment. Are GPs responsible for treating patients beyond their remit?

And while asylum seekers and refugees are entitled to register with GPs, there’s a grey area over failed asylum seekers. Many CCGs advise that GP practices ‘have the discretion to accept failed asylum seekers’, although the BMA advises this discretion applies only in as much as it would for any other patient.

Confused? You should be. And as Pulse’s survey earlier this year found, most GPs are. Three quarters of survey respondents said they were frustrated by the lack of clarity around NHS entitlements and many practices seemed to be operating contrary to official NHS guidance – 38% of GPs, for instance, said they would not register a person they believed to be an illegal immigrant.

Even worse, in the general confusion, GPs seem to get it in the neck from both sides. A practice in Essex was forced to re-register a family of migrants known to be without permission to stay in the UK because of the threat of legal action; meanwhile one in ten primary care organisations investigated GPs thought to be treating undocumented migrants even though DH guidance said they should not have.

It was, perhaps, the first commenter on our story this morning who put it most succinctly, in the unmistakeably authentic voice of the long-suffering GP: ‘Well, can we have some actual guidance not the wishy washy rubbish of previous years.’  

The tricky decision of who should have access to NHS care is a complex moral and economic one, and one which is rightly down to the politicians. Now that they’ve made it, for better or worse, it must be communicated clearly and applied consistently to end the current confusion.

Steve Nowottny is the editor of Pulse. You can follow him on Twitter @stevenowottny.

Readers' comments (11)

  • Well written article Steve but i wonder what stops the government from issuing outright clear guidance.By making GPs police access to the NHS they're kicking the problem into the long grass.What other powers are at play?Is it the Human rights act?Is it the fear of potential loss in trade with the emerging markets?On the face of it it should be very easy to say that if you don't fall into such and such category then you don't have free NHS access.All this can be determined before they even enter the country.Issue an ID card and get them to scan it in whenever they enter a NHS premise.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It's a human right issue, you either make everyone in the country carry ID cards , or just accept the current situation and stop moaning about it and tell ukba to do its job properly.
    That's the choice and I guess politically ID cards will never come in.
    Anyway I guess Ae is not busy enough as it is, this policy will just drive up numbers and will be far more costly to the nhs budget.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • An island nation that is unable to police its own borders.What a sad joke we've become!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Quite simply when an individual attends a GP for treatment who checks what to see if they are entitled?

    What if they are turned down and say that they are an "emergency" and they want to see a doctor to assess this?

    I assume that they then must be seen?

    The history they give may not be the truth and in any event will probably be followed by an examination.
    It takes little imagination to visualise the ensuing scenario with a determined individual especially if English is not spoken well - apparently or actually.
    Enter Human Rights into the situation and shudder with horror.
    The potential scope for fraud as usual disadvantages the true un-entitled but genuine emergency.

    The Government seem incapable of thinking things through and giving definitive answers. Of course this should not surprise us as in seems to occur in many situations.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The Home Office (UKBA) is one government department, the Dept of Health is another. It is not for UKBA to decide who can or cannot access NHS care; that decision is for the DoH alone; therefore it is their rules and regulations that must be considerably strengthened to allow for a fair and proper system of access.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • From what i've read the plan is to invoice them after treatment's been given.Well that's pretty much the staus quo then; fat chance of recovering the fees!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Overseas Visitors Managers are currently policing the overseas visitors that access treatment in hospital via A&E, so GP Practices should do their bit and request passport ID off patients registering for primary care that will subsequently be referred by the GP Practice for hospital treatment. We cannot open a bank account to pay in our own money without providing photographic ID and proof of address, so why should anyone be allowed to register with a GP and potentially access thousands of pounds worth of NHS treatment without proving they are entitled to it. Only the true health tourists would have a problem with this!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The news today is that they 'll be required to pay £200 per year for NHS services.Its a bit late for april fool isn't it??

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Primary and secondary care need to be on the same page and GP surgeries (being that they are the gateway to the NHS) need to accept responsibility for the identifying of overseas visitors (as overseas visitors managers in secondary care do so already). The DOH guidelines need to be re-worked so that they support safeguarding the NHS, rather than offering care to several different types of visitors to the country free of charge. In order for Overseas Visitors Managers to be able to do their jobs effectively, ALL clinical and non-clinical staff need to be singin from the same hymn sheet. The raising of the subject by Mr Hunt will hopefully ignite change for the better as it is us tax payers that ultimately foot the bill......

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • On a completely different note- Tax payers! Hmm, not many then as this number is a-dwindle

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say

  • Print
  • 11
  • Save