The Hurley Group eh?
Well, who'd have thought?
How likely is it that 400,000+ patients is the optimum size of practice to provide continuity of care or local responsiveness? How likely is it that any other provider got a serious look-in when those eight aPMS practices were put out to tender?
No, of course not. This is empire-building, pure and simple. The CCG's seem to love monopolistic providers and clearly favour them over other (often higher quality) alternatives.
Unfortunately the plan to transform General Practice into an oligopoly of vast patient farming enterprises is going rather well and it is a matter for deep shame that power-hungry doctors are often the leaders of this unrecoverable change.
I will be resigning my BMA membership in consequence.
I recommend this article to those interested in the legal aspects.
I draw the conclusion that on this occasion at least, the GMC is the wrong target.The greater problem is the injustice of Dr B-G's criminal conviction.
The jury were asked whether her care was "truly exceptionally bad” and they concluded that it was, the overwork and other systemic failures notwithstanding. It concluded that it was. After that, and losing he appeal too the GMC asked the High Court whether the MPTS were right in law to treat her more leniently. The answer apparently was No.
"...the High Court concluded, the Tribunal fell into legal error in effectively disregarding the verdict of the jury and reaching its own views as to the level of culpability. If a jury has found Dr Bawa-Garba’s actions to be truly exceptionally bad notwithstanding the systemic conditions, it’s not for a professional disciplinary tribunal to try to form its own opinion based on the systemic failings and downgrade the doctor’s actions to only ‘really quite bad’, in other words.
We may well disagree, but that's the law.
£350/ week was wrong.
The latest figure from the Office of National Statistics is actually £363m (gross).
Also Dr Chand, if may make a make a teensy, if slightly obvious point, whatever cash is freed up, it will come AFTER we leave.
Sir Simon Stevens (stepping well outside the bounds of civil service neutrality) also seemed confused about this, this week.
Sure, buy back the PFI contracts with extra public debt which we can dump on our children and grandchildren.
Great plan guys. Would Dr Chand be so kind as pass on our regards to his Revolutionary Marxist mates in the Shadow Cabinet.
Indemnity will be made available to GPs surrendering their GMS contracts to an integrated MCP
It's not going to happen though, is it?
The only way GPs will get their MDO fees paid is to surrender their independence and throw their all in with fully integrated MCPs.
It's a lever. HMG are bound to use in pursuit of their agenda.
My general experince, from patients accounts of the advice they have been given by pharmacists before they come to see me, and of my contribution to the training of a clinical pharmacist, is that the majority of pharmacists have only the sketchiest understanding of clinical medicine and are a million miles from being able to stand in place of an experienced GP. On the other hand their professional expertise, in areas of primary care to which they are suited by virtue of their training and experience is very much to be welcomed.
But substitute GS? Never.
They'll miss us when they've driven us all away.
There is nothing to stop the patients of the aPMS pratce registering with one of their local GMS practices. When the liust size has shrunk enough the pracyice will nolonger be viable. Terminate the aP
A human rights lawyer would make mincemeat of any attempt to the GMC to santion a doctor for withdrawing their labour (subject to proper notice etc).
Egregious bullying by an employer which ought to put them at risk of a law suit too.