The coalition government has launched two public consultations around the use of the NHS by migrants. The issue has been framed in such a way as to stir fears around British people being cheated. There are many legitimate concerns about universal access to healthcare, public health protection and Britain's obligations to Human Rights, but these will only be heard if people take part in the consultation and make their voices heard.

One group under particular threat are refused asylum seekers (NB. Due to the UKBA's inability to promptly process claims, many people who are later granted refugee status are initially refused. Being a refused asylum seeker does not equate to "does not have the right to be in the UK").

The Home Office and Department of Health have each launched a public consultation into the use of the NHS by people who are not British citizens. The Home Office subtitle for this exercise, "ensuring that migrants contribute fairly to the costs of their healthcare", makes clear that they would like to frame the debate in terms of health tourism and fears of British people being cheated. Meanwhile, legitimate concerns around protection of the public and free-at-point-of-access healthcare are being sidelined.

There are some groups who would be particularly disadvantaged by restrictions on access to healthcare, one of which is refused asylum seekers.   

Some of these concerns have been explained by Kinsi Clarke from the Notts. and Nottingham Refugee Forum:

"Here at the Refugee Forum, we are naturally alarmed and have great concerns about some of these proposals and will be submitting a formal statement before the process closes.

The cost presented in these proposals is not concerned with a homogeneous group but refers to all ‘migrants' including EEA nationals and UK expatriates using NHS care whilst here for visit or treatment.

The group we are concerned with is refused asylum seekers whose cost to the NHS is minuscule, even from the DH's own (estimated) assessment.

Excluding refused asylum seekers from any link to healthcare, and particularly denying them to be able to register with a GP is, we believe, profoundly wrong and counterproductive on many levels.

• There is no evidence this will save money on the NHS in the long term.
• This will put public health at risk as the gateway to specialised services (TB, HIV, STIs, Hepatitis, etc.) is generally via GPs due to this groups' lack of knowledge and understanding on the NHS system.
• As urgent and immediately necessary treatment must be provided at a later date when someone's condition gets to that stage, this will, in fact, cost more on the NHS and take up resources in hospital beds and already overburdened A&E.
• To have a group of people, most of whom are here through no fault of their own, who are already destitute and clearly unable to purchase healthcare, sick and dying in our streets is not only a breach of the United Kingdom's international human rights obligations, but is also something that we as a humane and civilised society does not want to see.
• The 2010 Equalities Act lists nationality and ethnicity as protected characteristics (under the heading of "race"). Attempts to prevent access to healthcare to people resident in the UK because of their nationality would contravene this act.

...There is also great deal of information on Migrant Rights Network website, including statements by six leading medical charities, and a position statement by the Royal College of General Practitioners, saying that they strongly object to doctors being asked to act as UKBA officials and urging all GPs to concentrate on the care of their patients."

Both the British Medical association and Roayal College of General Practitioners have already made clear their opposition to restrictions to healthcare (see links below).

Please contribute to the public consultation and stand up for the rights of some of the most vulnerable people in our society (links below).