Policy responses and statements
- Name of organisation:
- Department of Health, Social Services and Public
Safety (DHSSPS)
- Name of policy document:
- Guidance on HSC Patients Who Wish to Pay
for Additional Private Care
- Deadline for response:
- 23 February 2010
Background: The guidance on HSC patients
who wish to pay for additional private care has been developed in response
to a review commissioned by the Secretary of State for Health and conducted
by Professor Mike Richards, the National Cancer Director. Professor
Richards’ report,
published on 4 November 2008, showed that there was a great deal of
confusion about the rules in this area.
Existing guidance was being interpreted differently in different places,
and many patients were not clear whether they would still be entitled
to publicly funded care if they purchased additional drug treatment
privately.
On 21 January 2009, the Minister announced that patients in Northern
Ireland would be allowed to pay privately for additional drug treatments
without losing their entitlement to free health service care.
This draft guidance will now provide HSC organisations with a framework
within which arrangements for NHS patients receiving private healthcare
can be managed.
This formal consultation stage is designed to allow everyone to comment
on the guidance. The questions for consultation are:
Is the principle of separateness clear?
Are sufficient safeguards in place?
Should there be more assurance mechanisms in place to ensure the guidance
is followed and does not lead to any unintended consequences?
COMMENTS ON
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, SOCIAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY
(DHSSPS)
GUIDANCE ON HSC PATIENTS WHO WISH TO PAY FOR ADDITIONAL
PRIVATE CARE
The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh is pleased to respond to the
DHSSPS on Guidance on HSC Patients Who Wish to Pay for
Additional Private Care.
The College welcomes the guidance and believes it will be helpful in clarifying
the rules governing private and public sector funded care. The College has
responded to similar consultations in England and Scotland and offers the following
comments to DHSSPS:
Is the principle of separateness clear?
Item 5.1 In the high quality written information,
there should be clarification of a patient’s rights as they relate to
this area (i.e. make it abundantly clear that in paying for private care they
in no-way advantage or disadvantage their future NHS care provision).
Are sufficient safeguards in place?
Item 8.2, 4th point. The
sharing of results with the private provider should be done as routine good
practice rather than if necessary.
Should there be more assurance mechanisms in place to ensure the guidance
is followed and does not lead to any unintended consequences?
In item 4 Revised Guidance. The protocols for identifying
and recording the transparent sources of funding need to be openly available
and governance procedures in place to regularly review practice in areas that
provide private care within each trust. These records should be made available
to external independent review by the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority
(RQIA).
Item 4.5 should probably include a similar mention
about brief record in the notes (as per item 5.7) in relation to doctor’s
recording the avenues that have been explored and why they weren’t successful
or suitable.
Copies of this response are available from:
Lesley Lockhart,
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh,
9 Queen Street,
Edinburgh,
EH2 1JQ.
Tel: 0131 225 7324 ext 608
Fax: 0131 220 3939
[19 February 2010]
|
