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.
Iliffe and Manthorpe mention copayments with payments to GPs as an example. Not the best way to do it.
Surely the sensible, logical and equitable answer is copayments for resdential care services across health and social care means tested and costed in the same way. This would mean whether receiving care in hospital, in a care home or at home the financial impact for the user would be identical.
This would drive out many perverse incentives in the present system where a bed blocker in hospital is often a cost saving from the person's estate. Similarly individuals often decline social care because of the impact on their personal wealth and lead a perilous (and often wretched) life relying on the "free" saftey net of admission to hospital.
Realistically, with all major parties committed to reducing the public sector borrowing requirement and averse to large tax hikes the only way we can finance a comprehensive health and social care continuum will be by copayments.
So let us make them sensible and supportive of compassionate care for all vulnerable people.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
09 August 2014
Stephen Head
Clinical Director
Noots Healthcare Trust
Edwinstowe Health Centre, Edwinstowe, Mansfield, Notts, NG21 9QS
Re: A new settlement for health and social care?
Iliffe and Manthorpe mention copayments with payments to GPs as an example. Not the best way to do it.
Surely the sensible, logical and equitable answer is copayments for resdential care services across health and social care means tested and costed in the same way. This would mean whether receiving care in hospital, in a care home or at home the financial impact for the user would be identical.
This would drive out many perverse incentives in the present system where a bed blocker in hospital is often a cost saving from the person's estate. Similarly individuals often decline social care because of the impact on their personal wealth and lead a perilous (and often wretched) life relying on the "free" saftey net of admission to hospital.
Realistically, with all major parties committed to reducing the public sector borrowing requirement and averse to large tax hikes the only way we can finance a comprehensive health and social care continuum will be by copayments.
So let us make them sensible and supportive of compassionate care for all vulnerable people.
Competing interests: No competing interests