Let common sense prevail
GP Principal, counting the days...
It's very easy to whinge isn't it? If you feel the pension scheme you are in is crap then you can opt out. Here is the link to the form you will need.
Looks like an astute career move. Should be able to avoid seeing any patients at all from now to retirement.
At last, a bit of research that asks the right question!
I agree. The outcomes of this approach need careful evaluation. Are we catching cancer earlier and treating it successfully? Are we overtreating people with little benefit? Are we diverting resources away from other areas of the service? More referrals does not equal success.
As with any service, if you want to know how it is performing measure outcomes.
This move establishes the principle (long suspected) that the government consider YOUR pension to be THEIR money. It is not. It is yours. You have earned that money and saved that money. They have no right to put their dirty little fingers in it!!
I employed a pharmacist for a short period (3 weeks) to help with the burden of repeat prescribing and prescription queries. When he wasn't covering the duties each day I objected, and was told that 'clinical pharmacists aren't repeat prescribing machines', which I took to mean 'you'll have to carry on doing that yourself, because it's not sexy enough for me'.
Good article with some really simple 'quick wins'. Particularly scrapping CQC inspections and revalidation immediately.
'No immediate effect on practices' - what a load of codswallop. I'm currently looking at awarding my staff a payrise to get them to a reasonable level of pay. Put that on hold! Our CCG is investing significantly in primary care in order to shift work from secondary care. That money will be eaten up entirely by the pensions hike, so we will not be investing in additional staff etc.
The practice will be less profitable next year so my retirement looks much more enticing.
And let's get some clarity here - will GPs own employers' contributions be covered or not?
....and whilst state indemnity might save us £3/patient (if 50% reduction), the hike in pension contributions is around £6/patient.
For my practice I will get £1.76 network payment and £0.92 uplift in global sum. Then I will lose £1.90 Extended Hours, £0.85 seniority, £1.26 MPIG. Net: -£1.33 per patient.
I'm not cockahoop!
If Copperfield ever retires you could replace him with a column listing the motions to be debated at the next LMC Conference. They always make for a good laugh, although I prefer Copperfield as he is not quite so surreal.
I love Copperfield and enjoy my regular dose of cynicism, but I have to say the comments are very negative. If we don't want the government to pay (most of) our indemnity, or to heavily subsidise staff who may save us some headaches, we only have to say 'No, thanks very much'.
There are some positives in the renegotiated contract, indeed it is the first time that I have felt some positivity about the future of GP in a while.
All the promised new money in the renegotiated contract will be completely wiped out by the staggering increase in employer's superannuation contributions. The government must urgently explain how they intend to 'stop GPs from paying' the increase. And will this only relate to staff, or the GPs own contributions?
Credit where it is due. I think BMA has negotiated a very promising package here. Perhaps Dr Vautrey should now travel to Brussels to help Mrs May.
I disagree. 2.75 extra staff in my practice would allow me to shed 90% of repeat prescribing/drug audit/medication queries (pharmacist, and perhaps 75% of visits (paramedic). There is the potential here to make a real difference to my working day/health/sanity.
It looks to me like we will be saying in April "Can I please opt out of the State indemnity scheme in return for no reduction in my global sum" - I suspect we may get better value with the current arrangement.
I've just had a letter from MPS stating that I will still need a policy with them when the state scheme commences. No surprise there, but they go on to state that I 'may be entitled to a discount' because of the state scheme. Am I paranoid in thinking that I will continue to pay several thousand pounds a year for my own policy, and have a similar some deducted from my own income through a reduction in GP core funding?
I wonder why none of us anticipated this happening when Govt threw money at extended access???
It ain't rocket science!
I am notoriously resistant to change, but in this case do not feel overly anxious. By forming small groups we can still retain control over how we run our own practices, so I think these developments may potentially preserve the independent partnership model and continuity of care. I can buy into this one (although the devil is always in the detail).