🤝 Hospice and Palliative Care

Commons Chamber

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

MPs urged for sustainable funding for hospices, highlighting the sector’s financial strain due to rising costs and insufficient government support. They praised local hospices for their vital end-of-life care but warned that without long-term funding reforms, services might be cut, impacting patient care and increasing NHS burden. The debate emphasized the need for hospices to be integrated into the NHS’s long-term plan to ensure they can continue providing essential services. MPs called for action to address the funding crisis, stressing that everyone deserves dignified end-of-life care regardless of their location or financial status.

Summary

  • Hospice Funding Crisis:
    • The debate emphasizes the urgent need to address the funding crisis in hospice and palliative care across the UK.
    • Only about one-third of hospice funding is provided by the government, with the rest reliant on charitable sources, leaving hospices vulnerable to financial instability.
  • Government Intervention:
    • The government has announced a £100 million capital investment and an extension of the children’s hospice grant for another year, which is seen as a welcome but temporary relief.
    • There is a call for a long-term, sustainable funding model to be included in the NHS’s 10-year plan to secure the future of the hospice movement.
  • Impact of Funding Shortfalls:
    • Due to funding issues, many hospices have been forced to cut services, such as the hospice at home scheme, impacting patients who prefer to die in the comfort of their homes rather than hospitals.
    • Cuts in services directly affect patient care and increase pressure on the NHS when patients end up in hospital beds instead of receiving community-based care.
  • Workforce and Burnout:
    • Concerns were raised about the impact of the hospice funding crisis on staff, with many working long hours and facing burnout due to the high demand and insufficient resources.
    • The need for more palliative care specialists and better training for non-specialists was highlighted to improve care quality and reduce staff strain.
  • Regional Disparities:
    • There are significant regional inequalities in funding and service provision, with some areas receiving far less funding per capita than others. This has led to a postcode lottery in access to palliative care.
    • There is a push for more consistent and equitable funding from integrated care boards (ICBs) to address these disparities.
  • Public and Personal Impact:
    • Personal stories shared in the debate underscored the human impact of these services, with many MPs recounting their experiences with hospices that provided comfort and dignity at the end of life.
    • The debate highlighted the emotional and psychological support hospices offer, not just clinical care, which is crucial for patients and their families.
  • Calls for Action:
    • MPs urged the government to review the impact of recent fiscal policies, such as the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions, which add further financial strain to hospices.
    • There is a collective call for action to ensure that all UK residents can access high-quality end-of-life care, regardless of their location, and to prevent future funding crises that threaten hospice services.

Divisiveness

The session on hospice and palliative care displays a low level of disagreement. Throughout the session, there is a strong consensus among the speakers from different parties about the importance of hospice care and the need for improved funding and support. Many speakers referenced the recent £100 million funding announcement positively, indicating general agreement on the need for such investment. Criticisms were directed mainly towards the government’s fiscal policies, such as the national insurance increase, and the call for more long-term and sustainable funding models. However, these criticisms were delivered in a cooperative tone, often with suggestions for improvement rather than outright opposition. The focus was on constructive dialogue and urging action rather than fostering disagreement.