ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To model cost and benefit of a national community health worker workforce. DESIGN: Modelling exercise based on all general practices in England. SETTING: United Kingdom National Health Service Primary Care. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. DATA SOURCES: Publicly available data on general practice demographics, population density, household size, salary scales and screening and immunisation uptake. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We estimated numbers of community health workers needed, anticipated workload and likely benefits to patients. RESULTS: Conservative modelling suggests that 110,585 community health workers would be needed to cover the general practice registered population in England, costing £2.22bn annually. Assuming community health workerss could engage with and successfully refer 20% of eligible unscreened or unimmunised individuals, an additional 753,592 cervical cancer screenings, 365,166 breast cancer screenings and 482,924 bowel cancer screenings could be expected within respective review periods. A total of 16,398 additional children annually could receive their MMR1 at 12 months and 24,716 their MMR2 at five years of age. Community health workerss would also provide home-based health promotion and lifestyle support to patients with chronic disease. CONCLUSION: A scaled community health worker workforce integrated into primary care may be a valuable policy alternative. Pilot studies are required to establish feasibility and impact in NHS primary care.
Subject(s)
Community Health Workers , Cost-Benefit Analysis , General Practice , Health Workforce , Primary Health Care/methods , State Medicine , Adult , Aged , Child , Child, Preschool , Chronic Disease , England , Female , Health Promotion , Humans , Infant , Male , Mass Screening , Middle Aged , Models, Theoretical , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Primary Health Care/economics , Referral and Consultation , Vaccination , WorkloadABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom (UK), a number of National Health Service (NHS) Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG) have proposed controversial measures to restrict elective surgery for patients who either smoke or are obese. Whilst the nature of these measures varies between NHS authorities, typically, patients above a certain Body Mass Index (BMI) and smokers are required to lose weight and quit smoking prior to being considered eligible for elective surgery. Patients will be supported and monitored throughout this mandatory period to ensure their clinical needs are appropriately met. Controversy regarding such measures has primarily centred on the perceived unfairness of targeting certain health states and lifestyle choices to save public money. Concerns have also been raised in response to rhetoric from certain NHS authorities, which may be taken to imply that such measures punitively hold people responsible for behaviours affecting their health states, or simply for being in a particular health state. MAIN BODY: In this paper, we examine the various elective surgery rationing measures presented by NHS authorities. We argue that, where obesity and smoking have significant implications for elective surgical outcomes, bearing on effectiveness, the rationing of this surgery can be justified on prognostic grounds. It is permissible to aim to maximise the benefit provided by limited resources, especially for interventions that are not urgently required. However, we identify gaps in the empirical evidence needed to conclusively demonstrate these prognostic grounds, particularly for obese patients. Furthermore, we argue that appeals to personal responsibility, both in the prospective and retrospective sense, are insufficient in justifying this particular policy. CONCLUSION: Given the strength of an alternative justification grounded in clinical effectiveness, rhetoric from NHS authorities should avoid explicit statements, which suggest that personal responsibility is the key justificatory basis of proposed rationing measures.