www.independent-practitioner-today.co.uk
July-August 2019 Issue 113
INDEPENDENT PRACTITIONER TODAY
£12.50
IS YOUR BRAND WORKING FOR YOU? n See page 26
The business journal for doctors in private practice
In this issue
Use your content to grow your practice What is content marketing and how to use it P20
Make money, not white noise
How to make best use of your data so that it becomes a valuable resource and not meaningless ditigal white noise P30
Conflict of interests? By Robin Stride Consultants’ business relationships with private hospitals are being questioned in a new report voicing concerns about the possible influences on patients’ treatment. The Centre for Health and the Public Interest (CHPI) think-tank claims those receiving fees for use of equipment they own in the independent sector is ‘problematic’ from the perspective of patient care, as it has the potential to corrupt a specialist’s clinical decision-making. Its report, ‘Pounds for Patients? How private hospitals use financial incentives to win the business of medical consultants’, states: ‘Put simply, in the worst-case scenario, a patient could be given treatment which is unnecessary or even harmful because the consultant gains financially.’ Doctors’ shares in private hospitals are also put under the microscope. The CHPI cites US research showing ‘that where consultants own shares in the facilities in which they treat patients, the number of healthcare procedures carried out on patients in them is higher than in hospitals where consultants do not own shares. In association with
‘This is also the case when consultants own the equipment which is used to treat or diagnose patients – when consultants own equipment it is used more often on patients than when they are not owned by consultants.’ The report, authored by CHPI director David Rowland, warns if NHS consultants have shares in private hospitals, this has the potential to influence decisions about where patients, possibly unaware of a doctor’s financial interests, are treated. Some consultants who refer patients to private hospitals have received non-monetary gifts from the operators worth over £1,000 and this ‘might be considered to be likely calculated to induce patient referrals to private hospitals’. While the Competition and Mar kets Authority (CMA) 2014 private healthcare order permits ‘proportionate and reasonable’ hospitality, the CHPI questions if £1,226 rugby match tickets given to ten referring consultants, for instance, might be seen as an inducement to refer. The think-tank claims evidence shows that both the CMA’s and NHS England’s regulations to prevent financial incentives distorting patient care are ineffective.
How to win at billing
Ten simple rules to follow to ensure that your practice stays ahead of the pack P32
IMAGE OF OPPORTUNITY: These consultant investors are launching a new PET CT scanner. They are stakeholders in The Imaging Clinic, which created the chance for the oncologists to invest with BMI Healthcare in Guildford, Surrey. Pictured from left are Prof Stephen Langley, Dr Steve Whittaker, Dr Sharadah Essapen, Dr Anthony Neal, Dr Veni Ezhil, Dr Tony Dhillon, Prof Hardev Pandha and Dr Katie Wood. Directors Dr Tony Lopez and Catherine Lopez are on the far right. n See full story on page 6 The CHPI recommends the Dep artment of Health should take the lead in this issue, as the CMA is ‘not mandated or competent to act to address the potential harm caused to patients as a result of over-treatment or the wasteful use of scarce public healthcare resources’ and
should not be responsible for the law governing financial incentives. It wants fines and, in extreme cases, custodial sentences for legal breaches and a US-type system prohibiting conflicts of interest rather than attempting to manage them. ➱ continued on page 10
A CMA investigation, titled as above, was this month launched into suspected anti-competitive arrangements relating to the private healthcare sector ‘which may infringe’ the Competition Act 1998. This is unconnected to our ‘Conflict of interests?’ story . After reviewing parties’ responses, it will decide in October whether to proceed with a case. The CMA said:
‘No assumption should be made at this stage that the Competition Act has been infringed. ‘The CMA has not reached a view as to whether there is sufficient evidence of an infringement of competition law for it to issue a statement of objections to any of the parties under investigation. ‘Not all cases result in the CMA issuing a statement of objections.’
‘Privately funded healthcare services’