Top NHS clinicians demand new addiction levy on gambling industry Social Market Foundation.
Top NHS clinicians demand new ‘addiction levy’ on gambling industry
NHS clinicians, which specialize in the treatment of gambling addiction, are calling for thousands of dollars to gamble to provide funds for the prevention and treatment of gamblin g-related damage.
The call was made by Dr. Henrietta Baudens Jones, director of Gambling addictive Polykuri, and Dr. Matt Gaskel, Officer of Northern Gambling Service Medical Service.
In paper created for the analysis center of the Social Market Foundation, doctors suggest a fresh opinion from an independent health committee that observes funding from a training camp, which can earn £ 10 million a year. I'm doing it. The council is required to guide the Ministry of Health, not the Digital Technology, Culture, Media and Sports.
The government has reported that the government has not yet set a clear task to reduce gambling harm and halve in five years. (See Note for the full text).
The clinician's paper was written with James Noes, a senior researcher of SMF, who advised the liability of gambling politicians to the Labor Party politicians and limited politicians.
SMF papers were noted when ministers were preparing to propose specific reviews of the British gambling method.
SMF documents argue that a mechanism that supports industry proposals for measures against addiction is a permanent problem. In real time, some gambling companies are spontaneous contributions in support of the approved provider, and their main ratio of funds will be sent to one philanthropic organization, Gamblareware.
In February, NHS England cut off his relationship with Gamblewear, just for concern about VerD due to the approval of the group gambling.
The right to tax on gambling companies has since 2005, but the exchange of a friend of the government has been used because the industry hoped that the industry would support work to reduce their own free will. do not have.
SMF papers should provide such a detailed test such as alignment, summarize the victims related to gambling and replace them.
The author says:
- The Digital Technology, Culture, Media, and Sports has not responded to multiple voices seeking to establish integrated rates from a wide range of stakeholders.
- The current voluntary funding system lacks priority, transparency, and accountability.
- The biggest game carrier has promised to pay attention to important ways to relocate the suggestion of treatment (100 million pounds or more), but these methods are absolutely autonomous and inefficient. Is distributed to.
- Long-term prevention and recovery strategies are not adequately included in funding for research, education and treatment.
- In real time, there are no precise targets for harm reduction (in terms of numbers, timing and costs).
Experts have criticised the current system, reporting:
"The current voluntary system is not integrated with NHS services, there are no priorities in funding decisions, there is no independent evaluation of long-term impacts, there is no regulation by the Service Quality Commission, there is no coordinated oversight by guidelines for research on harms, and serious doubts are raised about whether the voluntary system is independent of gambling industry influence."
"Furthermore, funding decisions for health proposals are controlled by officials from the Department for Digital Technology, Culture, Media and Sport, not experts from the Department of Health and the Public Service as would be expected."
The article outlines the case for introducing a levy on gambling industry profits to fund prevention, research, education, cure and long-term reduction of gambling-related harm.
Oversight of the levy would require a new Joint Levy Advisory Committee, chaired by the Department of Health and Social Care. The advisory committee must work with scientists, medical experts, local government proposal providers, relevant research councils, the Gambling Commission and its advisory committee, and officials from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education.
The new council will be required to carry out a thorough assessment of the evidence on gambling harm and introduce the tax accordingly, the document states. The tax should be introduced in 2024 and the methodology should be implemented to achieve the precise target of reducing gambling harm by 50% within five years.
Dr James Noyes, a senior scientist at the SMF and co-author of the paper, said:
"In 2020, the House of Lords Select Committee report found DCMS's stubborn refusal to include a statutory gaming tax 'incredible'. And now, two years on, there has been not the slightest progress, for example. And this is despite dozens of leading doctors, scientists and MPs calling for the current voluntary agreement between DCMS, GambleAware and the gambling industry to be limited. " Long-term prevention and recovery strategies are not adequately included in funding for research, education and treatment.
{rules}
In real time, there are no precise targets for harm reduction (in terms of numbers, timing and costs).
- "Furthermore, funding decisions for health proposals are controlled by officials from the Department for Digital Technology, Culture, Media and Sport, not experts from the Department of Health and the Public Service as would be expected."
- Oversight of the levy would require a new Combined Levy Advisory Committee, chaired by the Department of Health and Social Care. The advisory committee must work with scientists, medical experts, local government proposal providers, relevant research councils, the Gambling Commission and its advisory committee, and officials from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education.
The new council will be required to carry out a thorough assessment of the evidence on gambling harm and introduce the tax accordingly, the document states. The tax should be introduced in 2024 and the methodology should be implemented to achieve the precise target of reducing gambling harm by 50% within five years.
- {rules}
- Experts have criticised the current system, reporting:
- "Furthermore, funding decisions for health proposals are controlled by officials from the Department for Digital Technology, Culture, Media and Sport, not experts from the Department of Health and the Public Service as would be expected."
- Oversight of the levy would require a new Joint Levy Advisory Committee chaired by the Department of Health and Social Care. The advisory committee must work with scientists, medical experts, local government proposal providers, relevant research councils, the Gambling Commission and its advisory committee, and officials from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education.
- Dr James Noyes, a senior scientist at the SMF and co-author of the paper, said:
Committee, the Social Market Foundation, Parliamentary groups, those with NHS England has also established a new Gambling Harm Clinical Reference. This paper sets out the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling's advice on the most effective approach to funding activities to reduce gambling harms. As I said in response to the intervention from Paul Blomfield, the NHS still does not have a long-term strategy to tackle problem gambling. It.
accepted