Postcode lottery? Do clinical commissioning groups differ in their funding of prominent ear correction surgery

In 2013 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) were created and became responsible for the planning and commissioning of health care services in their area. The Royal College of Surgeons and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons created guideline for the CCGs in 201...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JPRAS open 2020-03, Vol.23, p.32-36
Hauptverfasser: Smith, Kirsty M., Haeney, James A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:In 2013 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) were created and became responsible for the planning and commissioning of health care services in their area. The Royal College of Surgeons and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons created guideline for the CCGs in 2013 for the surgical treatment of prominent ears. By looking at each of the CCGs’ websites, we aim to review their equity and how well they adhere to standards to determine whether there is a regional variation for funding of this procedure. We found that 47% of the CCGs will fund this procedure only on an exceptionality basis, compared to 26% who had set criteria and would allow funding if these criteria were met. There was significant variation in the age at which funding would be considered with some CCGs allowing funding from 5 years of age and others not providing it until as old as 11 years. Only 11 policies made any reference to cartilage moulding and only 3 mentioned funding to allow correct fitting of hearing aids. Unfortunately, despite recommendations from the Royal College of Surgeons and the British Association of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, there is still variation in funding criteria between CCGs for correction of prominent ear surgery. This may result in patients being treated differently depending on their postcode. We would urge commissioners to apply more consistent and uniform guidelines for the funding of surgical correction of prominent ears.
ISSN:2352-5878
2352-5878
DOI:10.1016/j.jpra.2019.10.005