A new NHS-backed survey finds just 0.4 percent of adults in England meet the clinical threshold for problem gambling – far below the Gambling Commission’s reported 2.5 percent from its widely criticised GSGB – raising further concerns over the regulator’s controversial official statistics.
It’s another heavy blow to the credibility, and trust, in the Gambling Commission’s new model for collating – and effectively analysing – data on problem gambling.
First, it was the independent assessor of the Commission’s statistics who said the figures were unreliable; then, the Office for National Statistics who told the Commission it had significant flaws; all on top of a constant wave of warnings from analyst after analyst and the industry itself.
Now, it’s the latest study commissioned by NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care which this week has cast even more doubt on claims that problem gambling is worsening, suggesting instead that rates remain low – actually, in the range and pattern of the statistical records operated for the decade prior to the Gambling Commission’s newly devised GSGB.
The Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS), a comprehensive analysis of mental health trends among adults in England, found that only 0.4 percent of the population met the clinical threshold for problem gambling.
These findings are significantly lower than the 2.5 percent problem gambling rate reported in the Commission’s Gambling Survey for Great Britain. The stark discrepancy has once again sparked debate over the reliability of official statistics on gambling harm.
Industry analysts Regulus Partners, which has long criticised the GSGB, argued that it “remains an outlier when compared to all other official statistics on the prevalence of harmful gambling stretching back almost two decades.”
That is now is proving to be an understatement.
The latest APMS is a far more respected collation model – it is widely recognised as the model model.
Indeed, up until two years ago, it was used by the Gambling Commission until the regulator went rogue with its own fantasy framework for the GSGB.
The APMS uses face-to-face interviews and clinically validated tools, offering a more rigorous and transparent methodology. The study also found that problem gamblers are more likely to be receiving psychiatric treatment or counselling, suggesting they are already within the healthcare system – though not always recognised as affected by gambling harm.
Based on these findings, the APMS outlines two urgent priorities for policymakers …should they choose to listen.
First, gambling harm should be routinely screened for in NHS mental health and primary care services, particularly among patients presenting with depression, anxiety, trauma, or financial distress.
Second, public health interventions should shift focus from the general population to the small subset of high-risk individuals – offering targeted support through mental health care, addiction services, and financial counselling.
This recommendation effectively slaps down the Commission for its insistence on financial checks and increased friction for anyone who wants to participate in gambling.
Fuelled by its controversial new statistics, the regulator has continued to chip away at the customer experience of all players when its focus should have been on the 0.4 percent that suffer gambling harm.
Perhaps this latest NHS survey will prompt a course correction at the Commission, with the APMS insisting that policy must be grounded in evidence – clinical, not speculative?
Unlikely.
The Commission has dug its heels so deep in its statistical bunker of denial that not even Extraction III could penetrate.
The growing concern over the GC stats model may actually require government action. Perhaps then, even they will finally concede that the Gambling Commission’s new empiricals have no clothes, and everyone is shouting it out.
