Letter: Funding patients
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.Sir: Clive Parr (letter, 4 June) fails to see the essential difference between the old schemes for assisting in the development of GPs' premises and the new one connected with fund-holding.
With the old schemes there was no direct conflict of interest with patient care. With fund-holders there is, as Dr Markus pointed out (letter, 28 May), for if a fund-holding practice can reduce the money it spends on the care of its patients, it can divert that money into the improvement (and therefore the value) of privately owned practice premises. This is bound to lead to the suspicion that patients may be deprived of care so that GPs can profit. This potential conflict of interest should not be allowed to persist.
Dr IRVINE LOUDON
Wantage, Oxfordshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments