A London GP practice, threatened with closure following the Government’s decision to cut funding to GP practices, is at the centre of a High Court legal bid to keep it open amid claims that the cuts by NHS England to GP services in England & Wales are unlawful. The Jubilee Street Practice (JSP) in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, which currently has a list of over 11,000 patients, has provided 75 years of medical care and advice to the local community. It has achieved all the Government’s quality targets and has a 94% patient satisfaction rate with same day GP access. However, this week in response to unanswered pleas for help from NHS England, JSP posted a letter on its website stating that if the funding cuts for GP practices are to continue, then it would issue a notice to NHS England at the end of October 2014 resulting in the closure of the practice at the end of April 2015. Following the publication of the letter one of the surgery’s patients has launched a legal bid in the High Court to challenge the funding decisions made by NHS England and the Secretary of State, claiming that they are unlawful. The legal action against NHS England and the Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt, by lawyers Leigh Day, claims that inequality and consultation failure are the two grounds on which the decision to cut funding is unlawful. Leigh Day claim that in respect of its duties relating to health inequality, which require it to have regard to reducing inequality between patients with respect to their ability to access health services, NHS England are in breach of the National Health Service Act 2006 as amended by the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The letter explains that JSP is a practice, which serves an area of severe deprivation where the life expectancy is 54 as opposed to the more affluent London Borough of Richmond where it is 72. Lawyers say there is a specific and significant need to address health inequality when considering the future of JSP. The letter also claims that NHS England and the Secretary of State for Health failed to make arrangements for the involvement of patients in its decision making process, as it is required to do by the Act. The funding crisis for GPs follows the decision made by NHS England and Jeremy Hunt to reduce funding by adjusting the manner in which they are assessed. In 2013 Jeremy Hunt announced that payment-related performance indicators known as QOF (Quality and Outcomes Framework) points were to be cut from 1,000 to 900. This resulted in the Jubilee Street practice losing 100 points worth £30,000. This year the government stated it would move the value of several income streams into a global sum adjusted for list size and age and sex with women, children and elderly people having a higher monetary value. However the management of the JSP claims that this assessment is flawed, as it takes no account of the level of deprivation, ethnicity and general health status of patients. However it is the decision to withdraw the Minimum Practice Income Guarantee (MPIG), which protects surgeries from losses, and is worth £219,508 a year to Jubilee Street, which has led NHS England itself to declare that 98 surgeries could be at risk of closure from its removal, 5 of which are also in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Richard Stein from the Human Rights team at Leigh Day, who is representing 35-year-old Danny Currie, who has relied on the surgery for his complex medical needs for over 30 years, said: “The potential closure of this highly regarded practice is clearly a matter which has an impact upon the manner in which services are delivered to patients, and the range of health services available to them. “They should therefore have been consulted before these cuts to the surgery’s funding were made. “This is clearly an attack on inner city health provision and we agree with NHS England that the potential closure of this practice could be the first of many more. “The Government must do more to address the consequences of its decisions and funds need to be spent to reduce not increase the disparity in the services provided.” Information was correct at time of publishing. See terms and conditions for further details. |