Is there any detail about
1) The required specification of the above services?
2) The level of extra funding for the above?
Or are they ignorant of their unknowns, sowing the seeds for a future disaster?
It's the above. This is why you have your most experienced person triaging - not your least experienced.
This is the NHS equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
I wonder how many middle managers on 60k+ were involved in this?
Why should your receptionist be involved? Why can't the patient liaise with the company directly? Why does it have to be prescribed, and why free?
You pay for your receptionists' time via their wages. Why would you subsidise this scheme with your personal income?
Sorry - why does this have to involve GPs?
Why does EVERYTHING have to involve a GP 'prescribing' something?
The 50:50 is pointless - it can already be achieved by coming in and out of the pension scheme for 6 months of every year.
The fixed 50% is useless for most higher earners as even at 50% the tax free allowance is so small that it will be breached. It is worse for hospital doctors who will lose the employer's contribution component.
The indemnity being paid is NOT related to the Network DES. That has come out of global sum. Are you sure you understand the DES?
The funding for extended ours has actually been cut (and then split between global sum and the Network DES) - this was widely reported in Pulse.
Patient record systems in many areas were/are being merged anyway (GP Connect) and this really doesn't have to be a network issue.
New clinicians? Do you really want a social prescriber or 0.2 WTE of a pharmacist? What about the 30% that the network and/or practices will end up paying? What about the VAT issues?
There really aren't "many positives".
What is the point of this?
The contract is terrible, most of us should know that. But everyone still signed. Ours was the ONLY practice in our locality that didn't.
The BMA have done a sterling job with this and PCNs.
No-one gives a shit.
The public doesn't care.
HMG doesn't care.
It's a pointless exercise. People will only care when it affects THEM.
Aren't NHS England funding 70% of an assistance dog from year 3 of PCNs? And there's a requirement to work with local kennels.
I've just thought of an idea. Overflow Overflow hubs.
And then the merry-go-round (aka spiral of decline) can continue.
Hmm, the risk of lung cancer won't get people to stop smoking but the much lower risk of the relatively rare condition of rheumatoid arthritis will?
So lots of extra work for under £1 per patient extra.
Well done BMA!
I'll try not to spend it all at once....
I think the model is ridiculous but let's be honest - how many surgeries provide travel as more than just an afterthought? It should be removed from the NHS provision completely anyway.
This reminds me of when people offer you some of their crisps, but hold on the to the bag really tightly at the top so you can't get your hand in.
It is the responsibility of CCGs to commission this service. Why would it fall to individual GP practices?
A recent study found that my wiring would probably have been done better by an electrician rather than a plumber.
This is pointless since no GP would relocate specifically because of the £18k offer - it's probably 2-3 months worth of the income difference.
Instead this will be taken up by GPs who were returning to the UK anyway (e.g. for family reasons) as a nice little windfall.