The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) has warned recipients of statutory levy funding that they should abstain from attending industry-funded events.
OHID is charged with distributing the specific levy funds earmarked for gambling harm prevention, and consistent with noises coming from the commissioners over the past year, independence from industry seems to be the department’s priority at all costs.
The prohibition appears to be framed as guidance: “Things to avoid: Attendance or participation in industry funded events.”
But presented, as it is, alongside the absolute ban on accepting industry funding, it has acted as an effective block on charities attending this week’s iGB Live event.
Aside from self-exclusion charity BetBlocker, which was only notified of the guidance a week before the exhibition due to administrative abnormalities, no awardee attended the trade show.
It suggests, as Duncan Garvie, founder of BetBlocker, told NEXT.io, that despite the ambiguity of the guidance, “awardees appear to have accepted that this is just going to be the way things work.”
Don’t talk to them
Undue industry influence in the gambling harms space – or at least fears of undue industry influence – drove the implementation of the centralised levy and the abandonment of the previous voluntary system.
In what has felt like an overcorrection, many charities that had previously operated successfully under the voluntary model have been overlooked for funding due to their perceived closeness to industry.
But for those who are being apportioned money from the fund, there now remain roadblocks in the way of performing their function properly.
BetBlocker, GamCare, Betknowmore and YGAM all fall into this category, and are names that would previously have been commonplace at events like iGB Live.
Under OHID’s current rules however, they would miss these opportunities to engage with industry.
Garvie was busy having such conversations this week, and made the case as to why these gatherings are vital for the benefit of those who need prevention services most.
Posting on LinkedIn, he noted a number of productive discussions he had over the two days, adding: “Each of these conversations has the potential to meaningfully change either the protections that BetBlocker offers to everyone (including our UK users), or raise awareness of our support within relevant populations. And none of them would have occurred if we hadn’t participated in this event.”
Speaking with NEXT.io, Garvie was clear about his desire for an outcome-based approach to levy policy.
While he accepts the management of perception as being a reasonable policy driver in part, he is deeply concerned about the impact on BetBlocker’s users.
A happy compromise?
Garvie is unequivocal that were any restrictions in place when BetBlocker was asked to participate in iGB Live, the company would have declined.
In future, with things as they are, it will likely be the last time the charity is seen at a UK trade show.
There are hopes however, that through constructive dialogue with OHID, a clear conflict of interest policy can be established that would allow conditional participation in industry events.
Garvie writes: “It is reasonable to ensure that appropriate policies are enacted to address any perception of conflicts of interest, and ensure we don’t weaken services to prevent spurious criticism.”
He added: “Where we fail to take a level-headed approach, we risk jeopardising outcomes for the vulnerable people that we support.”
NEXT.io has reached out to OHID for further details on its guidance and to assess the viability of a conflict of interest policy. The department has not yet offered any comment.
