Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Although I agree with Richard Smith that increased healthcare supply
can increase demand for healthcare service, I strongly disagree with his
suggestion that all those earning over £20,000 a year in the NHS should
have their salaries cut by 5 or 10%. I would be surprised if anyone
earning at, or near, this lower limit would have any sympathy with it.
Although I accept the need to make changes in national consumption in
order to tackle a current deficit and increasing debt, there are choices
on how this can be done, which are made according to our value system.
NHS workers earning at, or near, this limit will be varied in their
circumstances (e.g. main household earner, sole household earner, single
parent, single person living with parents), however, I would argue that at
a time when the cost of basic necessities such as food, housing and fuel
are ever-increasing, most of these individuals, already earning less than
the average income, will struggle to make ends meet with the loss of £2000
or even £1000 of their annual income.
I propose that progressive taxation, or legislation to narrow the
sadly increasing gap between the highest and lowest paid, are alternative
options, which would contribute more equitably to rebalancing our public
finances. Further to this, if the aim is to decrease supplier induced
demand of healthcare services of ‘dubious’ efficacy, could we not re-
orient talent and increase capacity in health improvement work, thereby
garnering the additional long-term economic gains this would provide?
Richard Smith rightly insists on the consequence of the conflict of
interest that faces every physician submitted to an activity-related
method of payment.(1) Here again, poverty and overweight are linked.
Indeed, he reminds us of it. A century ago, George Bernard Shaw noticed:
“That any sane nation, having observed that you could provide for the
supply of bread by giving bakers a pecuniary interest in baking for you,
should go on to give a surgeon a pecuniary interest in cutting off your
leg, is enough to make one despair of political humanity.”(2)
The solution is the first point among Shaw’s 14 points conclusions:
Nothing is more dangerous than a poor doctor: not even a poor employer or
a poor landlord.(2)
The system should maintain a position stimulating both independence and
performance.
1. Smith R. Why medicine is overweight. Don’t forget inconvenient
truth of supplier induced demand. BMJ 2010;340:c3334
Deficit reducing options based on values
Although I agree with Richard Smith that increased healthcare supply
can increase demand for healthcare service, I strongly disagree with his
suggestion that all those earning over £20,000 a year in the NHS should
have their salaries cut by 5 or 10%. I would be surprised if anyone
earning at, or near, this lower limit would have any sympathy with it.
Although I accept the need to make changes in national consumption in
order to tackle a current deficit and increasing debt, there are choices
on how this can be done, which are made according to our value system.
NHS workers earning at, or near, this limit will be varied in their
circumstances (e.g. main household earner, sole household earner, single
parent, single person living with parents), however, I would argue that at
a time when the cost of basic necessities such as food, housing and fuel
are ever-increasing, most of these individuals, already earning less than
the average income, will struggle to make ends meet with the loss of £2000
or even £1000 of their annual income.
I propose that progressive taxation, or legislation to narrow the
sadly increasing gap between the highest and lowest paid, are alternative
options, which would contribute more equitably to rebalancing our public
finances. Further to this, if the aim is to decrease supplier induced
demand of healthcare services of ‘dubious’ efficacy, could we not re-
orient talent and increase capacity in health improvement work, thereby
garnering the additional long-term economic gains this would provide?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests