According
to a recent report, more than a third of GPs on the boards of new NHS commissioning
groups in England may face potential conflict of interest in the commissioning
process. The investigation, undertaken by the British Medical Journal, estimated
that 426 out of 1,179 (36%) GPs surveyed who are in executive positions on NHS
Commissioning Boards have a financial interest in a for-profit health provider outside
their practice.
This
entirely predictable predicament now has to be subject to guidance to be issued
by the NHS Commissioning Board.
However
honourable and decent these GPs are, (and I have no doubt that most, if not
all, are) – to be faced with a choice of the best provider for a particular
treatment pathway, knowing that you have an intimate personal or/or financial
relationship with that provider can be at best challenging, at worst, impossible.
If you exclude a provider on the grounds of conflict of interest, you are at
risk of reducing appropriate choice. If you exclude a commissioning GP on the grounds
of conflict of interest, you may be denying a population of patients of an
expert opinion. Catch 22.
I
am pleased to see a growing number of recruitment adverts from CCGs and Commissioning
Support Groups for pathway mapping, service redesign and cost reduction experts
to enhance the whole process and deliver an effective and independent commissioning
service. Considering the high proportion of GPs with declared private interests,
each CCG may need to appoint additional independent advisers to redress the
balance and maintain an impartial majority.
Ideally
– there should be an independent organisation to commission clinical services in
a region.
Ah
yes – there used to be. They were called Primary Care Trusts, and they are due
to be abolished next month.
0 comments:
Post a Comment