NHS refusing treatment to child who attends private school.

Ds's EHCP gave him on paper, loads of OT. It boiled down to one meeting every so often to advise him to make his own packed lunches (buttering bread and executive planning (hmm) and help out at a community allotment.
A lot of time was spent assessing his difficulties and motor function mind you.

We passed on the allotment as ds particularly detested the feeling of dry soil. Maybe it was a test to remind me I had solutions of my own.

Anyway I think OT services are stretched incredibly thinly and I suspect they wouldn't have given him more than bare minimum if they had seen this child.

DD is now a paediatric OT in a hospital, they have private patients and NHS patients , the private patients do not get access to the NHS OT, they have to pay privately for an OT

They aren’t gatekeeping though - they are commissioning a school OT service for the schools they fund! OT still exists for everyone else but not from the LA OT service - my 80 year old mum couldn’t access them either - she’s not a child in a LA school

Our DCs ehcp gives him 3 hours of OT support per year, including the time taken to write a report.
I would hazard a guess that people able to afford private school are able to afford far more than that provision.

I've got zero problems with LEAs commissioning private providers, none whatsoever.

I've got a problem with LEAs gatekeeping access to already scarce NHS services. In this case, an entire OT department dedicated to only working with state school children. It's either NHS, and it should be equally accessible by all, or it's not NHS and it should be made clear that this is a private service receiving no public funding.

That isn't really anything alike. Not unless they moved from the public sector knowing the deal was coming and then cried it was unfair, I suppose.

Not to mention the enormous privilege that private school is which the vast majority of children will never benefit from, now that's unfair. I can't believe the hypocrisy to be honest.

That’s not even remotely close as a comparison though. The OT will be accessible. The same hospital in all probability, just not via the clinic funded by the LEA.

Children in state schools aren't employees.
They are being educated by the LEA.

School nurses are also commissioned by the LEA.
Lots of MATs have instead commissioned Virgin Healthcare. It's crap.
Children in private schools can't access Virgin Healthcare nurses either.

Ok, let's put it this way. Your local hospital strikes a deal with the government that they are only going to accept public sector employees as patients. Call it an employment perk. All funded from public sector funds. Everyone in the private sector can go elsewhere. They'll still be able to access the service, just not here. Go to the next town along. Or maybe your employer can pay privately. Because this is our hospital for our people. Fair?

My son is in state and has OT. His situation was pretty extreme though and involves major rehab.

Ok think of this as an extra to health services provided for children who the LEA has an educational responsibility for. Does that help?

For gods sake, it will be provided. It just won't be through that clinic because the LEA isn't going to pay for their OT's to go to a private school. That is up to the private school which is what the parents chose when they opted out of state schooling.

Haven't read the article. It's practically impossible to get OT even with a EHCP in state. My dd is the only EHCP child in her school who's had more than one assessment. The OT is also a bit shit and no worth the stress to get it into her ehcp.

I have two boys who to private SEN schools funded via their EHCP as there is no state SEN school in my massive county that sits a full 8 GCSEs. Neither are there any state speech schools. Both of these schools have speech therapists and OT on staff.

So it's never black and white. When you can't recruit or retain staff, indi can and will fills the gap.

they don't pick and choose. The LEA comissions them to see certain children for whom the LEA has an educational responsibilty. ITS NOT AN NHS funded service.

For the umpteenth time, the source of the funding is neither here nor there, it all ultimately comes from taxpayers funds. Health services should be provided to all equally, regardless of what pot the money may have come from.

for the umpteenth time this is not an NHS funded service, its an LEA funded service. Yes its all funded by the taxpayer but different services can't just pop along to a service and say we have run out of money give me some of yours.

Exactly.

You can't opt out of state school and then cry unfairness when you expect something commissioned by money for state schools to pay for a child at private school when money in that area is stretched enough as it is. LEA money rightly doesn't go to private schools, they need to pay for it themselves.

Its not an NHS clinic. Its an LEA clinic which uses an NHS building and facilities which it probably pays to use. Its not uncommon for non NHS organisations to pay to use NHS facilities at times when they would otherwise stand empty.
When the mother received the notice that her son would not be seen by therapists at the unit – based at Ham Clinic (pictured) and part of Kingston and Richmond NHS Foundation Trust – she said: 'I knew straight away something wasn't right because we have used this service before' I suspect that the lady in question had attended that building before to access NHS services.

All state school funding and NHS funding is ultimately provided by the tax payer. If this taxpayer funded clinic is saying only certain taxpayers kids can access the service, that’s not fair. When you opt out of state school you don’t opt out of thevNHS. This clinic provider seems to think you do. I really can’t understand people not thinking this is wrong.

" The specialist unit had written a letter to her GP, which said they were “only commissioned to provide a service to the mainstream schools”.

When A (person or organisation) "commissions" B (person or organisation) to do something, it can just mean A has asked if B would do it. However, often there is some money or gift given to B as part of the "commission". If I "commission" a painter to paint my son's portrait, that definately implies that I have paid the painter something or will pay the painter something for the portrait.

In this scenario, I would strongly suspect that in some way the clinic had been FUNDED to supply mainstream schools. It is common for county education departments to pay for a service to run for their children, or for individual schools or academy trusts to buy in to a service to let their children have access to it.

When the unit said they were "only commissioned to provide a service to the mainstream schools" it literally meant the money the government provided to mainstream schools was how the clinic was funded and therefore it wasn't fair for the clinic to serve a child not in a mainstream school, because they would be using money allocated for the kids attending mainstream schools locally to attend to pay for that child. In the decision to send your child to private school, what other services that school will provide and how your child will access them needs to be a consideration.

Completely different as one is funded by the state and one is funded by an individual. You don’t get to opt out of paying tax.

Apologies, but I’m not familiar with every policy/legislation in the UK. Good for you that you are.

Because it is paid for by the LEA which the parents have opted out of and the OT's at that clinic don't attend private schools for assessment.

Private schools can opt in but they aren't required to. It isn't discrimination to not allow private schools to use something funded by the LEA. Other options are available.

Can I just rock up to a private school with my son and start using their swimming pool for hydro sessions without paying?

Parents should have done their homework then

Nope, this doesn't explain why an NHS clinic is closed to private school children, it only says it actively discriminates against them. They are not a private provider who can pick and choose their clients.