BMA says identity cards must not limit access to emergency care
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
Identity cards that contain information about the bearers?right of access to public services could be useful in clarifying individual rights to health services but must never limit access to emergency health services or require doctors to police access to health services, the BMA said this week in its response to proposals for introducing identity cards in the United Kingdom.
The BMA considered that identity cards that clearly spelt out individuals?entitlement could assist in the efficient delivery of health services. For example, they could be useful for individuals, such as asylum seekers, whose legitimate right to access public services had been viewed with uncertainty. A card that clearly spelt out their entitlement could be a positive step forward, the BMA suggested.
However, the association was concerned about the possibility that doctors might be asked to police access to health services. "A doctor抯 primary professional duty is to promote the wellbeing of his or her patients, and to provide health services on the basis of clinical need. Such a responsibility would create a conflict of professional interest for doctors," the BMA response warned.
The BMA was responding to a consultation document, Legislation on Identity Cards, that was presented to parliament by the home secretary, David Blunkett, in April 2004. The draft legislation sets out a framework for the proposed identity card scheme, which will require everyone aged 16 or over who is legally resident in the United Kingdom for three months or more to have a card.
The card would be required to gain access to free public services, including use of the NHS, and would contribute to reducing fraudulent use of such services. However, the consultation document noted that the requirement to produce the identity card to access services would be based on separate decisions for each service.
In its response, the BMA supported the government抯 overall intention to reduce inappropriate use of health services. However, it was concerned that any potential system should not cost the NHS more, in terms of additional bureaucracy, than it saved.
The response also warned: "It is vitally important that forms of identity should never be a requirement for access to emergency health care services, or for the treatment of infectious diseases." The BMA asked for clarification of exemption from the scheme of vulnerable groups, who could be further disadvantaged by an identity card scheme.
Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics at the BMA, said: "The BMA broadly welcomes the concept of ID cards but would like to see some flexibility in the provision of treatment to those who are ineligible for free NHS care, who cannot afford to pay for it, and are in real need."
She added that there was no hard evidence relating to "health tourism," in which it has been alleged that people travel to the United Kingdom specifically to obtain free health care. "It is vital that the measures designed to combat it are not more costly than the projected savings. We would welcome information from the current pilot projects set up to gather such data."(London Susan Mayor)
The BMA considered that identity cards that clearly spelt out individuals?entitlement could assist in the efficient delivery of health services. For example, they could be useful for individuals, such as asylum seekers, whose legitimate right to access public services had been viewed with uncertainty. A card that clearly spelt out their entitlement could be a positive step forward, the BMA suggested.
However, the association was concerned about the possibility that doctors might be asked to police access to health services. "A doctor抯 primary professional duty is to promote the wellbeing of his or her patients, and to provide health services on the basis of clinical need. Such a responsibility would create a conflict of professional interest for doctors," the BMA response warned.
The BMA was responding to a consultation document, Legislation on Identity Cards, that was presented to parliament by the home secretary, David Blunkett, in April 2004. The draft legislation sets out a framework for the proposed identity card scheme, which will require everyone aged 16 or over who is legally resident in the United Kingdom for three months or more to have a card.
The card would be required to gain access to free public services, including use of the NHS, and would contribute to reducing fraudulent use of such services. However, the consultation document noted that the requirement to produce the identity card to access services would be based on separate decisions for each service.
In its response, the BMA supported the government抯 overall intention to reduce inappropriate use of health services. However, it was concerned that any potential system should not cost the NHS more, in terms of additional bureaucracy, than it saved.
The response also warned: "It is vitally important that forms of identity should never be a requirement for access to emergency health care services, or for the treatment of infectious diseases." The BMA asked for clarification of exemption from the scheme of vulnerable groups, who could be further disadvantaged by an identity card scheme.
Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics at the BMA, said: "The BMA broadly welcomes the concept of ID cards but would like to see some flexibility in the provision of treatment to those who are ineligible for free NHS care, who cannot afford to pay for it, and are in real need."
She added that there was no hard evidence relating to "health tourism," in which it has been alleged that people travel to the United Kingdom specifically to obtain free health care. "It is vital that the measures designed to combat it are not more costly than the projected savings. We would welcome information from the current pilot projects set up to gather such data."(London Susan Mayor)