🤝 Hospice Funding

Commons Chamber

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

MPs passionately debated the critical funding crisis facing hospices, emphasizing their indispensable role in providing end-of-life care and easing the burden on the NHS. Joy Morrissey and others urged the government to reconsider the national insurance hike’s impact on hospices, which are struggling with increased costs and uncertain funding. The Minister outlined the government’s £100 million capital investment in hospices but was firm on not reversing the tax decisions affecting them. The debate highlighted a stark funding model flaw that threatens the survival of these vital community institutions.

Summary

  • Importance of Hospices: MPs from various parties emphasized the crucial role of hospices in providing end-of-life care, highlighting their support for 310,000 people and 92,000 family members annually. Hospices were praised for offering holistic care and relieving pressure on the NHS.

  • Funding Challenges: The debate focused on the financial pressures faced by hospices due to increased demand, rising costs, and uncertain funding. The sector is experiencing a “triple squeeze” that only the government can address.

  • Specific Case of Thames Hospice: Joy Morrissey discussed the Thames Hospice, which supports many families and relies heavily on fundraising and charity shops. The hospice faces a £1 million deficit due to government decisions like the national insurance tax increase and changes to the national minimum wage.

  • Government’s Response: The Minister for Care, Stephen Kinnock, acknowledged the importance of hospices and outlined the government’s efforts to support them. This includes a £100 million capital funding boost for adult and children’s hospices, with the first £25 million already distributed. Additionally, £26 million in revenue funding was allocated for children and young people’s hospices.

  • Calls for Exemption and Integration: MPs urged the government to exempt hospices from the national insurance increase and consider integrating them into the NHS to alleviate financial burdens. Suggestions included reallocating funds from hospital care to community and palliative care to improve overall care pathways.

  • Future Sustainability: The government expressed a commitment to the long-term sustainability of the hospice sector, with ongoing engagement with stakeholders and plans to address funding inequalities and improve end-of-life care through collaborative efforts.

Divisiveness

The session on hospice funding displayed a moderate level of disagreement, warranting a rating of 3. Throughout the debate, there was a general consensus among the Members of Parliament from different parties about the importance of hospices and the need for adequate funding. However, the disagreements primarily centered around the government’s current funding policies and the impact of recent fiscal decisions on hospices.

  1. Funding Model and Government Actions: Joy Morrissey highlighted the financial strain on hospices due to increased costs from the national insurance tax raid and the changes to the national minimum wage. She criticized the government for not providing a long-term funding settlement for hospices and suggested that hospices should be integrated into the NHS to benefit from exemptions enjoyed by other NHS entities. This was a point of contention, as the Minister, Stephen Kinnock, defended the government’s fiscal decisions, including the national insurance changes, as necessary for managing public finances. The disagreement here was clear, with Morrissey seeking exemptions or direct funding for operational costs, and Kinnock adhering to the budget decisions.

  2. Capital vs. Operational Funding: There was a specific disagreement about the type of funding provided. The government’s offer of a £100 million capital funding was seen as helpful but insufficient by Morrissey, who stressed the urgency of funding for operational costs to cope with the immediate financial pressures on hospices. This reflects a disagreement on the prioritization and allocation of funds by the government.

  3. Integration into NHS: Rachael Maskell suggested integrating hospice staff into the NHS payroll to exempt them from national insurance increases. This proposal met with resistance from Kinnock, who stated that the decision on national insurance contributions was final and aligned with budget policies. This disagreement illustrates differing views on how hospices should be structurally supported.

Despite these disagreements, the debate also showed a significant level of agreement on the importance of hospices and the need for better support. Both sides acknowledged the value of hospices in providing palliative care and the pressure they alleviate from the NHS. The tone of the debate was generally constructive, with MPs from different parties praising each other’s efforts and contributions to the cause. The disagreements, while notable, were mostly focused on policy implementation and financial mechanisms rather than fundamental opposition to the importance of hospice funding itself.