Babylon: GP at hand - all thoughts welcome

Big fat no.

GPs surgeries get a flat fee per patient, regardless of complexity. Therefore they rely on the some of the money from the generally well “easy” patients to cover the shortfall of the more unwell or complex patients.

This seems to me to be a failing of the NHS funding allocation, not the fault of any 3rd party. Our population is not evenly spread in terms of 'complexity', and there must be many surgeries in areas with an elderly population currently having this issue.

I believe that technology will ultimately improve our healthcare service, but the technology is still very early stage. AI just isn't ready yet to diagnose, and even building a video consultation system is still technically complex. I don't believe the NHS are the right people to invest in building/deploying unproven technology, as it takes such a huge amount of time and money to create.

Patients have been able to register with a GP near work rather than home (or indeed near anywhere else they want to) since 2015.

I fully welcome online services to stay in touch with my practice - I once had to drag my DH into the surgery (almost literally, he was in a wheelchair but the car park was knee deep in snow) simply to be told his liver function test result was too high and we needed to book an appointment with a nurse for repeat bloods and then return for a third time to get the results. Only one of those required a face-to-face interaction. But god knows Babylon wouldn't touch my DH with a bargepole, what with his complex health needs and huge monthly drugs bill.

This is the Bounty of general practice, but sprinkled with the fairy dust of 'AI in healthcare', the latest craze in healthcare tech. I see that Babylon have been raking in investment cash, I wonder why that is? (Clue: it's not because investors want to improve the healthcare of the British public).

Surely it actually raises questions over how GPs are funded...

I work in digital healthcare for the NHS. Lots of valid points on here about how services such as Babylon are a backdoor to privatised two tier services.

The AI technology has not been peer reviewed to be shown as safe.

www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/gp-topics/it/ccgs-block-babylons-expansion-of-gp-at-hand-to-birmingham-on-safety-grounds/20037085.article

The company are cutting their teeth in some countries in Africa honing their model, which I find morally questionable given the lack of evidence around safety (though I do think there are 2 sides to it in terms of access to doctors in rural areas).

It should also be noted the service is financially unsustainable for the NHS.

www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/commissioning/commissioners-provide-1m-bailout-to-ccg-after-influx-of-babylon-patients/20036869.article

Partnership with mumsnet...am . Can't fathom why mumsnet would support this.

I very much sympathise with those who say they are struggling to access GP health services within the current system, unfortunately this model drains away more GPS as it's more lucrative income, and could create a two tier health economy whereby those who need services the most may not be able to access them at all.

GPs surgeries get a flat fee per patient, regardless of complexity. Therefore they rely on the some of the money from the generally well “easy” patients to cover the shortfall of the more unwell or complex patients.
If you register with GP at Hand instead, that practice gets your funding rather than your previous GP. You can’t be registered with 2 places at once but I believe you can use the online Babylon app (paid for) without de-registering from your own GP

I don't know enough about how the NHS works. Why is funding denied from GP surgeries if 'easy' patients register elsewhere? And why can't patients register in two places? I'd love to have both a physical GP where I work and the option to access a 'virtual' GP if for some reason I can't get to the surgery or they have no appointments.

However I am not in favour of online symptom checkers. I don't believe the technology is good enough and the stakes are too high.

Mumsnet has campaigned to keep commercialisation (eg Bounty) out of NHS maternity care yet thinks this is a good idea?

I cannot understand this.

This.

No. Just no. Awful idea for so many reasons. If this goes ahead then I will never use Mumsnet again.

Please don't.

I agree with PP but I also have a lot of sympathy for Pringle

I am very lucky in that I am healthy and well with no disabilities. I don't expect to have to see a GP at any point in the foreseeable future.

....and that's bloody lucky because at my practice you cannot see one!

They have paramedics instead

I am not joking. You ring up at 8 (by which time I already need to have left for work) and ask for an appt. If you can get through - and you often can't - you get an unspecified "healthcare professional" phone appt, which you somehow have to take at work in a broom cupboard somewhere - and IF they think you are worthy of a real appt then they make you one - with a paramedic.

He is very nice but frankly I wouldn't trust him to spot diabetes, cancer etc. It's not good enough and telling "easy" patients that we should suck up having no reliable access to healthcare is not okay.

Do they not accept patients with long term conditions at all then?

If same day appointments become a thing of the past my SN with medical conditions DS would definitely benefit from GP at hand.

If you do this, I'm another one who will leave. How can you campaign in the areas you do but allow this company to tie up with you? It seems to run contrary to ideals behind mumsnet.

@MichaelMumsnet - please can @JustineMumsnet come onto this thread and discuss our concerns.

Mumsnet has campaigned to keep commercialisation (eg Bounty) out of NHS maternity care yet thinks this is a good idea?

I cannot understand this.

This is an awful idea MN. You shouldn't be supporting them.

No no NO.

Mumsnet, this is a scandalous idea. You have a responsibility not to contribute to undermining the NHS.

Quite apart from the privatisation-by-the-back-door issues, hugely inappropriate of MN to be promoting this. It's not a nappy test, FFS.

I'll be off if you go ahead.

Cannot believe you're even considering this Mumsnet - really shitty behaviour.

Terrible idea .

Data mining!

As already said....a really bad idea

All basic healthcare should be funded by taxes. If the existing GP model is broken, something has to change - and I'm very pleased with GP at Hand so far. I can finally access basic healthcare. It's sad that this was a victory rather than a given.

The people who are so against Babylon should feel grateful that they are apparently lucky to live in a part of the UK where they can make a doctor's appointment and get seen for something that requires a doctor's appointment before their health is jeopardised. Believe me, that's not the case everywhere in the UK.

Even in London the service varies hugely in boroughs. Absolute postcode lottery.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I am sick of paying for private GPs and private prescriptions when I'm entitled to free NHS ones.

Any acknowledgement of the appalling state of the GP "service" is a huge step forward. The "GP at hand" service will undoubtedly save a lot of people a lot of money, and undoubtedly save lives too - because busy people will actually be able to consult a GP.

Strongly disagree with this idea