The bucks stop here: why the NHS has pushed back on gambling-related funding

While the NHS decision to refuse ongoing donations from GambleAware may not have come as a shock, it’s fair to say that it has come as a massive disappointment for most people connected to the gambling industry. Of course this isn’t the first time the NHS has ceased to accept donations from sectors which are viewed as being on the cusp of morality. However, perhaps due to my personal stake and deeper understanding in this area, it feels worse and somehow more unjust than other examples.

In relation to reported reasons behind the decision, particularly the claim that patients attending NHS-run gambling clinics are ‘uncomfortable’ about using services paid for by the industry, this feels slightly surprising. Although I have no personal experience of how gambling addiction may affect an individual’s views on industry-funded treatment, I have listened carefully to several ‘experts by lived experience’ on the matter. None of whom have expressed concerns on accepting support which is directly, or indirectly paid for by gambling companies. It’s also prudent to note that the statement is apparently unsubstantiated, with no data being published to support it.

Questionable validity of the claim aside, if taken at face value, it would be interesting to understand whether the cited patients feel ‘uncomfortable’ receiving help from gambling support charities, the majority of which are also funded by industry donations. On speaking with representatives of several charitable organisations following the announcement, the one positive I can glean from the whole situation is that they are likely to benefit from additional funding in the future, as they mop up the ‘tainted’ monies which have been previously earmarked for the NHS. Mindful of this, should we be concerned that donations could potentially go unutilised, if there’s a chance that the number of problem gamblers engaging with charities will decline, based on feelings of moral discomfort?

Source of funding

Although it hasn’t been referenced, I suspect the most likely reason behind the decision is an expectation that the Gambling Act 2005 review will ultimately result in a statutory levy. This could very well be the case, only time (probably quite a lot of it) will tell, however I do wonder how much the NHS would actually see of a levy. The other consideration is how any new, levy driven process would really differ that much from the current one. In reality the source of the funds would remain the same, and only the ‘vehicle’ for the movement of industry money would change. Whatever that vehicle may be would remain to be seen, but can there really be a middleman, so much more morally acceptable than the fiercely independent organisation, GambleAware, which lists no industry-connected individuals at all on its board of trustees?

For me, the most worrying thing about the move is the unspoken message it sends, namely that there remains a real reluctance for wider industry stakeholders to be seen to work alongside gambling operators. Through mass collation of behavioural data and ongoing investment in analysis of that data, the industry is in an unparalleled position to work with charities and healthcare functions, helping to build a wider ‘research, education, treatment’ framework which really works. The potential operator contribution to this work is unique, invaluable, and imperative, something which apparently goes unrecognised by organisations that purport to work towards reducing the effects of gambling-related harm in society, yet which refuse to work with operators.

Aside from the reasons that the decision feels (a little) like a kick in the teeth, in several recent discussions, it has been suggested to me that £1.2m isn’t a huge amount in the grand scheme of things and perhaps this is a storm in a tea-cup. This is a view I strongly disagree with. According to NHS England, between April and December last year, 668 people with the most severe gambling addiction issues were referred to NHS specialist clinics. Despite Gambling Commission reported problem gambling levels sitting at an all-time low, in a world where we all agree that ‘one problem gambler is still one too many’, is cutting off donations, which last year supported nearly 700 people, really the right way to go?

I feel this point is particularly poignant in the context of our post-pandemic world. We’re led to believe that the NHS is on, or is close to being on its knees, and therefore the choice to decline any sort of financial backing is surprising to me. While I really would like to think that the decision has come from a good place, the wider societal context further bolsters my cynical view that this is yet another attempt to publicly vilify the industry for political gain.

Whatever your views on gambling, at the end of the day it is legally permitted, deeply entrenched in our society and it isn’t going away any time soon. With that in mind, shouldn’t the charities, the healthcare services and the community support functions be working together, with the industry, for the greater good of the consumers?

Kirsty Caldwell is founder and director of Betsmart Consulting. She has worked in gambling compliance for more than 10 years, heading up compliance departments in both tier-one egaming operators and start-up environments.