Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

GPs drop patients `to boost profits'

Cherry Norton Health Correspondent
Sunday 12 September 1999 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.

DOCTORS ARE accused of striking from their lists huge numbers of patients, including children, to maximise profits, in a report published today.

An investigation reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine concludes that GPs have removed from their practices children whose parents refuse to let them have the MMR vaccine, which has controversially been linked to autism and the bowel disorder Crohn's disease.

Family doctors gain financial bonuses for meeting quotas for screening and vaccination programmes. If they immunise all infants on their list from two months to 12 months against measles, mumps and rubella, they receive bonuses.

But, to ensure they have a 100 per cent rate of immunisation, GPs are striking from their lists infants whose parents are "unco-operative", totalling about 10 per cent of babies, the report says.

Dr Neena Buntwal and her colleagues at the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital in London were prompted to investigate why patients were removed after finding that 30 per cent of their patients on acute psychiatric wards had been struck off their GPs' register at some point.

Dr Buntwal said she had heard of some children being taken off their GPs' lists while in the vaccination age range, only to be returned later.

"Patients who require expensive medicine may also face removal and [this is] a factor which is particularly of concern to psychiatric patients needing drugs such as antipsychotics costing pounds 300 to pounds 500 a month," she said.

The investigation by Dr Buntwal and her team found that GPs do not need to give a formal reason, and the health authorities are not obliged to keep a record of the circumstances leading to doctors letting patients go. Reasons found varied from rudeness and threatened violence to unspecified psychiatric behaviour and an unco-operative attitude.

The team reported that attempts to uncover further data had met enormous opposition from the Family Health Authorities and the Local Medicine Committee.

Dr Buntwal said there was a need for compulsory collection of data on the reasons for patients being taken of GPs lists. She said that without a proper review of the situation, there was "a considerable danger of producing a substantial underclass - a population of people excluded from primary health care because of poor resources or personal opposition to screening programmes".

Dr John Chisolm, chairman of the British Medical Association's General Practitioners Committee (GPC), said he rejected the claim that millions of patients were being removed from GPs' lists, but he recognised that the current system of data collection was very poor.

"The GPC is working with the Department of Health to look at how we can collect anonymised data on list removals to get a better picture. We suspect that on average the numbers removed amount to one or two removals per GP per year," he said.

He said that any patients who reject their family doctor's advice on childhood immunisation or cervical smear tests should not, under BMA guidelines, be removed from lists. "The GPC does not support or condone the removal of patients solely because they have made a complaint or because their treatment is too costly or because they are suffering from a particular clinical condition. Nor would it condone removing patients from lists in order to meet target payments," he said.

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