Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Election `97: Practice bears brunt of two-tier service

THE GP'S TALE

Sunday 27 April 1997 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

In Montgomeryshire, all the GPs are fundholders except for the four partners who run the health centre in Llanfair Caereinion, who stayed out of the scheme because they believed it would create a two-tier service.

Their worst fears have been realised. As a result of their principled stand, their 4,500 patients face the longest waits of 18 months to two years for routine surgery at the local Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, while those from neighbouring practices are treated at the same hospital in an average of three months.

Dr Tony Evans, one of the partners, said: "This week a man who has been waiting over two years for an operation on his prostate had it postponed again. The hospital would not allow that to happen to a fundholder's patient because it would be breaking their contract. The patient is extremely angry. Like us, he feels it is unjust.

"The Royal Shrewsbury has now threatened that it will cancel all non- urgent surgery unless more money can be found. Since we are the only non- fundholding practice we are the only ones affected."

"We stayed out of the fundholding scheme because we believe that if you hold your own budget for hospital care it is bound to interfere with your clinical judgement. I don't think you could get a better example of how disgracefully inequitable the scheme is than by looking at our situation."

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in