Hubertus Von Blumenthal
Contributing to local infrastructure like Health, Public Transport, Amenities etc when you are planning to cover the locality in new housing and making a big profit from that sounds like a good concept to me, shouting socialism and snorting misses the point.
Section 106 is a difficult system to process for CCGs and NHSE because of the convoluted funding streams Primary Care receives. They often conflate it with Practice Development funding, which it isn't.
We found out about planned developments in our patch and actively engaged with developers who were happy to contribute via 106 and specified with the local authorities that contributions should be specifically spent for our practice. It was the CCG and NHSE who wouldn't engage in first accepting and then releasing the funds for those specified improvements at our surgery for nearly 9 years but we succeeded in the end.
I would recommend to engage with developers directly despite being discouraged by CCG/NHSE from doing so. They claim they have their own teams raising 106 issues but they are so woefully underfunded/-staffed/ignorant as to be near non-existent hence above article.
Then make sure developers specify the recipient and the purpose in broad terms ("50K£ for practice X to increase consulting space"). This is vital, otherwise the money disappears in a black hole.
Then speak to and engage your local councillors and get them on your side. They will hold the moneys for 5 years until the project gets started.
Beds CCG has served notice on a minor injuries LES (rural communities, long distance to A+E). The result will be patients referred to A+E for every suture, sprain and bump. Economically nonsense, everyone loses but they have been warned.
GMC, Good Medical Practice, Domain 4: 64
"If someone you have contact with in your professional role asks for your registered name and/or GMC reference number, you must give this information to them."
Would you like to ask them?
Local CCG would only release this money to practices who federate, thus using it as a political tool rather than investment. Practices who don't benefit by federation or who are opposed to it are financially penalised, even if they are providing excellent service.
In response to the anonymous 'Horizontally opposed': you may find that every country in Europe has desirable aspects of life. 'Free' healthcare is by and large available in most EU countries, just organised differently. Of course there is holiday and sickness pay and social security in Italy and I hazard a guess that it is no worse than it is here. As to 'free education' - you must be joking! Britain has one of the most divisive education systems in Europe and ask your kids if you have any, if they are looking forward to 60-70K student debt after medical training. In Germany it's free.
Your insinuation that Andrea prefers her personal comfort to your '800 year fight for your rights' is factually wrong, to put it mildly.
DNAs are a side issue and distraction, yes they are irritating and annoying but they are only a minor problem we are currently facing. Discharging patients after a first DNA makes sense for the hospital. It cuts down the waiting list numbers and in case of a follow up appointment missed, a second referral will generate a new 'Consultant episode' and hence a bigger payment. Never mind the cost to the whole health economy. The solution is not fiddling with follow up rules or bickering between Primary and Secondary care but addressing the bloated and costly, politically driven internal market - get rid of it and save a lot of money and unnecessary work.
A single payment system reflects either absolute ignorance of the complexities of funding Primary Care or a cunning move towards what appears to be this government's agenda: The destruction of General Practice as you know it. The current crisis is calculated and engineered to take the independent contractor model to its brink, to blame it for 'failing patients' and to replace it with private companies 'saving' the day with health centers employing a skeleton medical workforce with plenty of PAs and similar.
I am speechless that throwing us a bone with no meat on seems to have suddenly mollified a great number of contributors. Don't be so naive!
5000 new GPs in 4 years from now?
Single payment system?
Universities offering places for PAs, all expenses paid?
"I can give you a categorical
assurance that I am not seeking to save any money from the junior doctors’
paybill" = the bill for the treasury/DH will be the same, but your working conditions will change. You will work 'social hours' on Saturday night for weekday daytime pay and you won't have annual increments, you will start at the bottom again if you do research/have maternity breaks etc etc.
Hunt is expert in double speak and obfuscation. He despises the medical profession, don't trust him.
Dr Hubertus von Blumenthal
Greensands Medical Practice
The fundamental misconception politicians have about triaging is that for them it is a 'bottom up' process, non-medical unqualified people passing up problems to qualified professionals dependent on severity. The opposite is true however. Triaging should be done by the most experienced clinician and passed down the 'chain' according to expertise and experience. That would of course be unaffordable within current systems, which is why NHSD and 111 and whatever they will be replaced by in due course will be destined to fail.