Surrey funding cuts

So Surrey is the latest to jump on the bandwagon - hping to make up a deficit of £125 million pounds by axing spending on tattoo removal, treatments for baldness and guess what... yes IVF. However they managed to end up with a deficit of £125 million pounds, one can safely say that it wasn't by spending money on fertility treatment, which is estimated to be less than half a percent of total NHS spending. And it's interesting that they have managed to cut £7 million from their spending on "management" (which is still going to cost around £10 million a year).

It's easy to cut IVF spending. No one gets terribly upset, apart from the people waiting for treatment who are often so devastated by their experience of not being able to conceive that they find it hard to talk to their friends about it, let alone to start waving placards outside their local PCT offices. The long-term impact for these couples is usually neglected in talk about "priorities". We know that more than 90% of couples with fertility problems suffer depression, and this can often lead to other health problems. In the future, the opportunity to try to have a child if you can't do it easily will only be available for those who have the cash to pay.

What's really worrying about all this is the precedent that is being set. Surrey have cheerfully announced that "If you don't need it, the NHS won't pay for it." Who decides what constitutes "need"? Do you really "need" a hip replacement? Or a cataract operation? Do children "need" free prescriptions? Do pregnant women "need" scans? If the NHS is only there to deal with life-threatening conditions, then we don't "need" an awful lot of what it does, but is that really a future that anyone wants?