The NHS risks becoming the “World Health Service” because even visitors to the country can claim free treatment, immigration campaigners warn.Ministers have confirmed that GPs do not need to ask prospective patients for ID or proof of address when registering them, raising fresh fears over “health tourism”.

It allows foreign nationals who arrive in England on a six month visitors visa to begin receiving health care immediately.

But the pressure group Migration Watch UK says that it could also mean illegal immigrants getting NHS treatment.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the organisation, said: “What this means is that someone getting off a plane with a valid visitors visa, is, in effect, able to access the GP services of the NHS without ever having paid a penny into the system. Over one and a half million such visas were issued last year.”

“And once registered with a GP it is, in practice, an easy step to potentially highly expensive and long term treatment – all at the expense of the UK taxpayer with little or no prospect of the beneficiaries ever being charged for it.”

He went on: “‘It is clearly not the job of doctors to act as an arm of the immigration service but there are clear and substantial risks of abuse in such a lax system and controls must be put in place.”

“The present situation is outrageous. Everyone knows the pressure the NHS is under and its ever increasing cost to the taxpayer. To allow such easy and potentially hugely expensive access without any entitlement must be stopped at once, otherwise the NHS risks becoming the ‘World Health Service’.”

The “lax” rules were confirmed in response to a parliamentary written question asked by Frank Field, the veteran Labour MP.

From: http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/

Dementia should be made a top health priority on a par with cancer and lung disease, a leading expert has said, after it has become the next global “time bomb”.Professor Peter Piot, former Under-Secretary General of the United Nations, compared dementia to the AIDs epidemic and said one person is diagnosed with the mental illness every seven seconds.

The population of sufferers, which currently stands at 36 million, is set to double by 2020 worldwide.

He is now calling on the World Health Organisation to add dementia to their list of top priority diseases to fund research and treatment across the globe.

He said: “It’s not adding years to your life, but life to your years.”

Despite his calls to improve diagnosis, Prof Piot admitted it may not always be ethical to diagnose the condition, in parts of the world where treatment is not yet available.

He told BBC Radio4’s Today programme that developing countries in Asia and Latin America were seeing the greatest rise in dementia sufferers, as better healthcare led to people living longer.

Prof Piot, director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: “The figures speak for themselves. We are really going into the next global health time bomb.

“I have worked for the last 30 years on AIDs. That was a time bomb several decades ago and it’s still not over.

“But the figures are there. Today 36 million people are living with dementia. Every seven seconds there is a new case and we will see a doubling in the number of people by 2020.

“People in the emerging economies, like Asia and Latin America, are living longer and dementia is progressing fastest there in terms of the numbers.

“It’s affecting, families, communities and of course the people themselves.”

He added that the idea dementia was an inevitable part of aging is a “myth” and that early diagnosis would allow sufferers to make legal, financial and care arrangements.

The World Health Organisation list of priorities currently comprises of cancer, lung disease, diabetes and chronic heart disease.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Dementia-is-next-global-health-time-bomb

Family doctors must take an “active stand” against the Government’s health reforms by preventing private firms from controlling NHS budgets, the British Medical Association has warned.The call-to-arms is contained in a strongly-worded letter from the BMA to 22,000 general practitioners, which argues the Health and Social Care Bill will be “irreversibly damaging to the NHS”.

It marks a move from the BMA opposing the Health and Social Care Bill to advising members to do something about it, if it receives Royal Assent.

The letter, by Dr Laurance Buckman, chair of the BMA’s GPs’ committee, describes the Bill as “complex, incoherent and not fit for purpose”.

It warns the legislation will be “almost impossible to implement successfully, given widespread opposition across the NHS workforce”.

Dr Buckman argued the reforms “will be irreversibly damaging to the NHS as a public service, converting it into a competitive marketplace that will widen health inequalities and be detrimental to patient care”, and “could cause irreparable damage to the relationship between GPs and their patients”.

Although stronger in tone than previous criticisms the BMA has made, the statements in the letter do not change the union’s position. It moved to a position of total opposition last November.

However, Dr Buckman also called for GPs to act if the Bill becomes law.

Doctors have become increasingly concerned about the role of private firms in running clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), which will be responsible for buying services for the NHS. These will control about two-thirds of the service’s £100+ billion budget.

The Bill contains provisions for private firms to become involved in CCGs, with the Government arguing they will just provide back-office support.

But Dr Buckman wrote: “Unless GPs take an active stand, the day-to-day running of the CCG, and especially its commissioning function, is likely to be outsourced to the hands of organisations providing commissioning support services (CSSs).

“These bodies will initially do some or all of the “back office” functions, but we fear that, in time, they could become the de facto CCG management.”

He continued: “We believe this will lead to the privatisation of commissioning, destroy the public health dimension to commissioning, with a loss of local accountability to local populations, and is likely to exacerbate health inequalities.”

This point is central to much opposition to the Bill, which opponents argue is a poorly-disguised Trojan horse for privatisation of the NHS.

Many GPs favour some sort of clinically-led commissioning – putting doctors in charge of buying health services – but Dr Buckman said the Bill was not necessary to achieve this.

Two senior paediatric pathologists say they have discovered vitamin D deficiency in a significant number of children who have died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)- cot deaths.The two doctors, Dr Irene Scheimberg and Dr Marta Cohen, say that vitamin D deficiency and associated diseases such as the bone disease rickets could also explain deaths that are often thought to be suspicious.

Both doctors believe their findings merit further investigation and research.

The findings in children from London and Yorkshire followed the discovery by Dr Scheimberg in 2009 of congenital rickets in a four-month-old baby whose parents had been accused of shaking him to death.

Chana Al-Alas,19, and Rohan Wray, 22, were acquitted of murdering their son Jayden after the jury learned that his fractures, supposedly tell tale signs of abuse, could have been caused by his severe rickets. Dr Scheimberg also discovered rickets in Jayden’s mother.

In London, Dr Scheimberg discovered vitamin D deficiency in a further 30 cases. Vitamin D deficiency was found to be a cause of death in three cases. Cardiomyopathy, a disease of the heart muscle, was discovered in two small babies. A third died of hypocalcemic fits, a condition of low serum calcium levels in the blood caused by vitamin D deficiency.

Vitamin D deficiency was a co-existing finding in the sudden and unexpected deaths of eight children, so-called Sudden Infant Death or Sids; in five children with bronchial asthma and another five with combined bacteria-polyviral or polyviral infections. Two of the babies, including baby Jayden, also had rib fractures.

In Yorkshire, Dr Cohen found moderate to severe levels of vitamin D deficiency in 45 children, mostly infants aged less than 12 months, who died of natural causes. Of the 24 sudden infant deaths Dr Cohen investigated from this group, 18 – or 75% – were deficient in vitamin D.

Dr Scheimberg said severe vitamin D deficiency could make the bones of small babies very brittle and capable of fracture with little or no real force.

Dame Sally Davies Chief Medical Officer was quoted as “We need to investigate the vitamin D levels of these children carefully and the circumstances in which the bones fracture,” she explained.

“Obviously if you have bones that fracture easily then they will fracture easily they will fracture with any normal movement like trying to put a baby grow on a baby you will twist their arm. In a normal child you won’t produce anything. But in a child whose bones are weakened and [who have] an abnormal cartilage growth area, then it’s easier for them to get these very tiny fractures or even big fractures.”

Vitamin D is actually a hormone, and endocrinologists are experts in how the body is regulated by the hormone excreting glands – or endocrine organs.

Stephen Nussey is professor of endocrinology at St George’s Hospital at Tooting in south London. He believes that, despite repeated government recommendations on vitamin D supplementation, vitamin D deficiency is still not being taken sufficiently seriously by the authorities.

“Lizards are quite like humans in their vitamin D. Their dietary intake is pretty low and they need to have sun exposure and you need to have a light in the enclosure in which you keep your lizard of the right wavelength.

“If you don’t have one of those lights your reptile will get osteomalacia [adult rickets] very similar to humans. I guess the RSPCA would quite rightly prosecute you if you didn’t give your reptile vitamin D.

“But there’s no action taken against you if you don’t give it to your daughter. So that rather illustrates the importance placed on vitamin D for your reptile rather than giving it to your daughter.”

Earlier this week, the chief medical officer for England, Dame Sally Davies, wrote to doctors, nurses and other health professionals advising them to consider vitamin D supplementation for certain at risk groups, including pregnant mothers.

“We know a significant proportion of people in the UK probably have inadequate levels of vitamin D in their blood. People at risk of vitamin D deficiency, including pregnant women and children under five, are already advised to take daily supplements. Our experts are clear – low levels of vitamin D can increase the risk of poor bone health, including rickets in young children,” she explained.

“Many health professionals such as midwives, GPs and nurses give advice on supplements and it is crucial they continue to offer this advice as part of routine consultations and ensure disadvantaged families have access to free vitamin supplements through our Healthy Start scheme.

“It is important to raise awareness of this issue, and I will be contacting health professionals on the need to prescribe and recommend vitamin D supplements to at risk groups.

From: http://multi-vitamins.eu/vitamin-d-deficiencies-linked-to-cot-deaths-sids

Penicillin doses for children need to be reviewed to take account of the fact youngsters are getting heavier meaning they may not be getting an adequate dose doctors have said.Dosing guidelines have remained unchanged for almost 50 years and are mostly based on children’s ages.

But experts argue that the dose a child needs is determined by their weight – and the average weight of children has increased.

It means that children may not be receiving a big enough dose of antibiotics to combat their infection.

Giving inadequate doses also encourages bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics making them harder to treat in future, it was warned.

The average weight today of a five-year-old is 21kg and a 37kg for a 10-year-old – up to 20% higher than in 1963, researchers at King’s College London sad.

The study, led by a team at King’s College London and St George’s, University of London, said they were “surprised at the lack of recent evidence” to support current dosing recommendations for penicillins.

Writing in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), they said ‘fractions’ of adult doses are calculated instead of basing the dose on the weight of the child who needs treatment.

The article said: “The widely used doses are still based on the original dosing principle of a big child = half an adult, small child = half a big child, baby half a small child.”

The team analysed the actual dose that would be received today based on age bands recommended in the 2010/11 British National Formulary for Children and the current weights of children based on 2009 Health Survey for England data.

The results showed doses could be strikingly low.

The authors also pointed out that many infections do not need treatment with antibiotics.

“Many of the five million children in England who receive oral penicillins each year may not need them, but those who do should receive them in an effective dose.”

Dr Paul Long, senior lecturer in pharmacognosy at King’s College London, said: “We were surprised at the lack of evidence to support the current oral penicillins dosing recommendations for children, as it is such a commonly used drug.

“Children’s average size and weight are slowly but significantly changing, so what may have been adequate doses of penicillin 50 years ago are potentially not enough today.

“It is important to point out that this study does not provide any clinical evidence that children are receiving suboptimal penicillin doses that lead to harm, and we want to reassure parents of that.

“But what we are saying is that we should ensure that children with severe infections who need these antibiotics the most are still receiving an effective dose.”

Penny pinching NHS managers have introduced new viagra prescription guidelines which could limit thousands of couples to having sex once a fortnight.New policy documents advise GPs in parts of the country that patients in need of Viagra or similar drugs should be limited to two pills per month, down from the normal prescription of four.

Although the policy was described as a “recommendation” by NHS authorities, local medical committees told the GPs’ magazine Pulse in GPs slam secrecy over evidence for Viagra rationing restrictions it was being handed down to family doctors as an “edict”.

Erectile dysfunction medication is already stringently limited on the NHS and can only be prescribed to patients with certain conditions such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis and prostate cancer.

According to the NHS some 2.2 million prescriptions for erectile dysfunction drugs were issued last year, with 14.5 million tablets issued at a cost of about £78 million.

NHS guidance acknowledges that there “appears to be no clinical reason to restrict the number of tablets” but it adds that, according to research, the average person has sex four times a month.  The average frequency of sexual intercourse in the 40 to 60 age range is once a week.”

The new policy is aimed at economising on non-essential treatments, recommending that the minimum effective dose be prescribed “two times per month using the drug with the lowest acquisition cost.”

The guidance applies to sildenafil (Viagra), vardenafil (Levitra) and tadalafil (Cialis).

Richard Hoey, editor of Pulse, said: “Ask most doctors and they will say that being able to live a satisfactory sex life is a key part of health and wellbeing, but the NHS has never recognised that in its policy on treatment for erectile dysfunction.

“Limiting patients to drugs like Viagra just twice a month is to treat sex like an unnecessary luxury, and completely fails to recognise the degree of anguish it can cause some men with erectile dysfunction.”

Erectile dysfunction is very common in middle aged and older men, with an estimated 50 per cent of those between 40 and 70 experiencing the condition to some degree.

Viagra and other medications can be bought privately, but the cost of about £40 for eight pills can be prohibitive, and patients must also pay for a private prescription.

The new prescription guidelines were drawn up by South Central Priorities Committees, which covers primary care trusts (PCTs) in Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire, Berkshire East, Berkshire West and Buckinghamshire.

Alcohol drinkers should have two alcohol free days every week warn MPs- who claim current guidelines give the false impression that daily consumption is healthy.The Science and Technology Committee says current advice on “regular” safe intake is confusing, and wrongly leads people to believe that enjoying a few pints of beer or glasses of wine every day will not harm health.

It wants the Department of Health in England to carry out the first proper review of drinking guidance in more than 15 years, which should follow the example of Scotland in recommending two “dry” days a week.

The MPs also want new rules on what would count as a dangerous night of “binge-drinking”, new lower safe levels for older people and a website where people can work out individual intake based on their age, weight and family history.

They say few people understand what constitutes an alcoholic unit, the basis of the drinking advice, and tell ministers that the guidelines do not seem to change behaviour.

Although the Committee’s report concedes that the drinks industry is needed to help improve labelling on bottles and glasses, it warns of potential conflicts of interest if the Government works too closely with brewers and shops.

Andrew Miller, the Committee’s chairman, said: “Alcohol guidelines are a crucial tool for Government in its effort to combat excessive and problematic drinking. It is vital that they are up-to date and that people know how to use them.

“Unfortunately, public understanding of how to use the guidelines and what an alcohol unit looks like is poor, although improving.

“While we urge the UK Health Departments to re-evaluate the guidelines more thoroughly, the evidence we received suggests that the guidelines should not be increased and that people should be advised to take at least two drink-free days a week.”

The MPs’ report, published on Monday following public hearings and written submissions last year, states that the first Government health advice on sensible drinking was not published until the 1980s.

Originally, the public were told that men could safely have 18 “standard drinks” a week and women half that number, while in 1987 this was revised in favour of weekly “sensible limits” of 21 units for men and 14 for women.

Medical research later suggested that moderate daily alcohol intake could be good for the health, by lowering levels of bad cholesterol in the blood, while giving weekly limits could “mask episodes of heavy drinking”. In 1995, therefore, daily limits were introduced that recommended men should not drink more than three to four units a day, and women two to three.

Some experts, however, raised concerns that this switch from weekly to daily limits appeared to increase the weekly “allowance” of alcohol while also appearing to “endorse daily drinking”.

The MPs say more recent studies have cast doubt on the health benefits of regular drinking, and recommend that England follows Scotland’s lead in urging “at least two alcohol-free days a week”.

They back current specific advice for children and pregnant women, and say “there could be merit” in producing new rules for older people as well as limits for “individual drinking episodes”, but find no evidence for increasing current general safe limits.

The Committee says an expert group, including civil servants as well as scientists, should review current evidence on the health effects of alcohol in order to “increase public confidence”.

They say people should be made aware of the difference between the short-term effects of binge drinking and the long term harm caused by alcoholism, and should be helped to understand how many units are in different drinks.

Interpol is seeking the arrest of the boss of the a French company PIP (Poly Implant Prothese) whose breast implants are at the centre of an international health scare.Jean-Claude Mas, 72, is wanted by Costa Rican authorities for crimes involving “life and health”, according to the international police agency’s website. Mr Mas was reportedly last seen in the Latin American country.

Interpol, which is based in France, issued a so-called red notice for Mr Mas, who ran Poly Implant Protheses (PIP), which is in liquidation.

France on Friday offered to pay for 30,000 women to have their PIP implants removed because of the risk the products could rupture and leak industrial-grade silicone.

But the Department of Health said it was not echoing the French advice as there was no evidence to support it. However they are reviewing the data and more information will be made this afternoon.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) pointed out that there was no evidence of any disproportionate rupture rates other than in France.

A spokesman said: “We therefore do not believe that the associated risks of surgery from breast implant removal can be justified without further evidence.

“We will continue liaising with the French medicines and medical devices regulator and we are awaiting the evidence to support the decision made in France. This will be evaluated as a matter of priority by our clinical and toxicological experts and we will issue further advice if necessary.

Tens of thousands of women in France, Britain, Italy, Spain, Portugal and other countries in Europe and South America have had implants made by PIP, which has now closed.

The implants are filled with an unapproved non-medical grade silicone believed to be made for mattresses and there have been reports that the protective barriers are faulty.

The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS) took a different stance from the Government and said it considered the French advice “not unreasonable”.

BAAPS president Fazel Fatah said: “If women are concerned or experience adverse symptoms they should see their surgeon, to discuss options such as having a scan to determine whether there is any weakening or rupture. If there is, we reiterate our previous recommendations – to have both implants removed.”

Figures from the MHRA suggest 84,300 PIP implants have been sold in the UK since 2001.

Based on the assumption that each woman has two implants, at least 42,000 women in the UK could be affected, according to the regulator.

But the figure could be higher because women undergoing breast reconstructive surgery following cancer may only have had one implant.

There are a host of challenges looming for the NHS in the next 12 months.After 139 days of public hearings, the Mid Staffordshire Public Inquiry closed on 1 December. There is no date yet for the publication of the final report. But already Robert Francis QC, the head of the inquiry, has said the issue threatens to unleash a “tsunami of anger”.

The inquiry has been looking at what happened at Stafford Hospital from 2005 to 2008 during which hundreds of patients died needlessly and why it went undetected for so long. In particular, the findings promise to have major implications for regulation of the health service.

In recent months, the Care Quality Commission, which now regulates quality in the NHS after taking on responsibility for it from the Healthcare Commission in 2009, has come under criticism from the House of Commons health committee for losing sight of what it should be doing. Ominously for the quango, the prime minister was quick to give his backing to the findings.

What is more, during the inquiry the culture and vision of the regulator came under attack from its own officials, prompting the health secretary to order an investigation himself. It seems unlikely that the CQC will survive unchanged.

Politically, the government’s reform of the NHS in England may be over the worst hurdles, but that does not mean it will be an easy ride from now until the big bang in 2013 when GPs finally get control over the purse strings.

There is growing frustration among doctors who are getting involved in the new clinical commission groups. In many ways, they should be the greatest advocates of the plans as they are supposed to be getting more power than ever before.

But the Clinical Commissioning Coalition, which represents the GPs who are piloting the new arrangements, has started reporting that they are being bullied by senior managers in the health service. They say they are interfering with their structures and decision-making process – and this in turn is threatening the whole project. Expect another 12 months of arguments and controversy.

Although it is not part of the NHS, the social care system is closely linked to the fortunes of the health service. Whether it is arranging discharge from hospital or preventing falls in the home, when social services are not working as they should, the effect is felt in the NHS.

When Tony Blair came to power in 1997 he talked about improving social care. But at the end of Labour’s 13 years in power, ministers were still arguing about the best way forward.

After 13 years of labour’s dithering the system is suffering from chronic under funding.

While the NHS enjoys a budget in excess of £100 billion, adult social care has to get by on about £14 billion.

This is topped up by individual contributions – the system is means-tested – but nonetheless councils across the country are cutting back on what they can offer. And so reform will require extra money – something which is of course in short supply at the moment.

It is also likely to require cross-party consensus, but there is still some bad blood between the health secretary and his Labour opponent Andy Burnham over the death tax row which effectively scuppered the shadow health secretary’s plans to reform social care when he was in power.

The budget is increasing by an average of 0.1%, but as inflation in the health service is rising at a much quicker rate to cover costs associated with the ageing population and rising levels of obesity, savings are having to be made.

The NHS has a target of £20 billion by 2015, the equivalent of about 4% a year. That means there is pressure on jobs – unions say tens of thousands are being lost – and front-line services.

In particular, hospitals are coming under pressure. Advances in medicine and the nature of illnesses in the 21st century – many more people are suffering from chronic conditions like diabetes – means more and more can be done in the community.

It has meant an increasing number of hospitals are piling up debts because they are not getting enough patients through the door.

This in turn means managers and ministers are having to make difficult decisions about closing departments and even whole centres. The process will continue in 2012, particularly in and around London which was recently described as being in a “shocking” state by a committee of MPs.

Under Labour, an 18-week waiting time target was set for non-emergency hospital treatment, such as knee and hip operations. Within months of the coalition being formed, ministers said it was being relaxed to move away from the tick-box culture that they say had developed.

But when the government was knee-deep in criticism over its reforms the prime minister made the specific pledge that waiting times would not be allowed to slip. This has resulted in more attention than ever being given to waiting times.

And signs are emerging that hospitals are beginning to struggle to keep up with the 18-week goal. Overall, the NHS is still meeting the target – they only have to achieve it for 90% of patients to reflect the fact there are valid reasons why some wait longer.

But that masks the fact that there is a rising number of places where it is being breached, leaving the best-performers to bring the national figure up.

It means there could be growing dissatisfaction with the waits patients are facing, although it must be remembered a return to the 1990s when waits of six months and even a year were the norm for many patients is still a long, long way off.

The controversial NHS medical records database system would allow patients to check their medical documents online and raise any inaccuracies or problems with their doctor, however concerns have been raised over the security.The announcement was buried in documents released with the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement ahead of the results of a public consultation due to be published next year.

Patients should be given greater access and control over their medical information, the consultation said.

However, there are worries over the security of the system and that the information will be passed on or sold in so called ‘technology and data markets’.

Patients could be pressured into giving third parties, such as insurers access, to their record or to disclose details contained in it, it was warned.

In documents released with the Autumn Statement, it said: “All patients in the NHS will have online access – where they wish it – to their personal GP records by the end of this Parliament.

“GP practices that can already provide online access are encouraged to do so as soon as possible.

“These measures will help to position UK companies in the development of a personal information market, which is likely to be the next stage of development on from the growth of social networks.

“Online access to one’s own personal data enhances personal control and participation in public services. It also fuels innovation and growth in the supporting technology and data markets.”

Concerns were raised last year that the Summary Care Record was being rolled out too fast with patient records being uploaded to the national system unless people directly opted out.

The roll-out was halted but it now appears that it is to be restarted again and all patients who have already been contacted will have an online record by 2013.

The summary care record is part of a wider online medical records database to allow NHS staff to access brief medical records of patients they may treat outside their home area. However, in pilots, it was found that staff were passing access ‘key cards’ to each other breaching security rules.

Guy Herbet, general secretary of the campaign group No2ID, said: “The problem is this is a Trojan horse for the continuation of the Department of Health’s continuing centralisation of all medical records, and its seeming desire to share them with its friends in the pharmaceutical and medical technology industries.

“That’s a real threat to privacy and medical confidentiality. And the government has continued the previous administration’s work of taking records out of the hands of clinicians who have a direct duty to you.”

Gus Hosein, Executive Director of Privacy International, said: “In theory, this system is a positive development; everyone should have access to their own information.

“The problem is that the NHS is insisting on building a multi billion pound computer system to store records containing our most intimate and potentially compromising information.

“At best, it will fail, as large government IT systems have historically tended to do. At worst, it will create a data protection nightmare. The benefit of giving patients access to their medical records is vastly outweighed by the huge expense of the system and the significant threat to privacy.”

Chaand Nagpaul, the British Medical Association’s GP IT lead, said: “The BMA does believe that patients should be given the option of accessing more information online so that they can make informed decisions about their care.

“However, take-up has been very slow in those areas where patients have been offered access to their records online.

“It is essential that further work is undertaken to assess the level of demand amongst the public before further investment is made. With the NHS being asked to make efficiency savings of £20 billion, we must not waste money on expensive systems that patients will not use. It is also important any electronic system has built in confidentiality and data security safeguards.

“The UK’s research base and wider NHS could benefit from plans to publish datasets more widely and open up new channels of communication between different parts of the health service. It is important though that confidential data is not inadvertently disclosed. Proper safeguards must be put in place to stop this from happening. “

From:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/All-patients-to-be-given-online-access-to-medical-records