I need a bus to take all the staff to the summer party.
Do you think I can...
"ask - with the consent of our employees - for support from Stagecoach, to transport us all to and from the summer party. (for free obviously)"
They will probably say yes.
We have a mix of full time and ‘part time’ partners.
If counting accurately I think the part time GPs would be working about 37 hour weeks.
So it should be recorded as full time and double time.
As above - sounds like a public health intervention - should be managed by PHE.
If they do not have the manpower - they can commission the service.
But asking GPs to do it for free is not right. It is like asking my bank to do my tax return, just because i have a current account with them.
To be fair their 'area' is just the area of the practice, which is within one local boundary. The practice can register out of area patients, just like any other practice in the entire country can.
I am not a fan of Babylon - and I think the problem needs addressing.
It needs addressing properly, by making sure the funding is appropriately linked to illness or workload rather than patient numbers. Babylon are not the only culprits, there are many practices who are driving up profits through poor care by driving up the number of patients per GP - and then not offering enough appointments to meet the demand.
So in summary the network les is not the way to address the problem, just find a better way to do it.
Lets remember that the taxpayer alliance is a right wing pressure group.
This study is about as trustworthy as a pharmaceutical company's study which has not been peer reviewed. It is not worth the paper it is written on.
The problem is that Slack Matt wound look any further than the headline and the advice of the pressure group.
Can you imagine trying to implement 25 patient contact limits? There are some days where I see:
30 booked patients.
8 extra patients
8 phone calls
10 extra patient tasks based on contact with other professionals (receptionists/ paramedics/ DNs/ etc)
So that makes 60 - without considering bloods, letters etc.
I am with anon2016.
Somewhere there will be a patient declined a proven/ effective drug or treatment today because the cost is 30000 per QALY. Or perhaps it is proven effective but not 'proven' to be more cost effective than 30000/ QALY.
Cam the CQC really say it is more effective than 30000/QALY? Make sure they include ALL the practice costs (for our recent inspection we cancelled 500 appointments to prepare. That alone is 20k.
And remember once it feels it can say it is more effective than 30000/QALY it needs to provide proof to the same level as any other drug or NHS expense.
Otherwise they should individually be sent to explain to patients declined treatment that they cannot have their proven treatment just because the CQC would like to create 'jobs for the boys'.
There are so many policies that work against working full time. They should not just be cancelled, but instead reversed to give more advantages to working full time (as a GP).
I don't think it is realistic to change progressive tax rates. But how about the following:
1 - We all know the very complicated situations with regards to pension tax - that needs to be corrected asap.
2 - But why should a 10 session GP earning 120k pay a higher employees contribution percentage than a 7 session GP earning 84k?
3 - Why when a 10 session GP partner who is off sick (for 2 week) get paid 180 pounds per session to cover locums, but a 5 session GP partner get 360 per session to cover locums?
Don't worry - a significant cut in the global sum payments for Wales will definitely help the recruitment crisis.
Am I the only one who read the headline and got it the wrong way (or maybe the correct way).
GPs to receive training or tackling....
'unprofessionalism from the GMC'
i.e. how to tackle the GMC being unprofessional. I think we can all agree that would be useful.
Medicinal cannabis pressure group says doctors are not prescribing enough medicinal cannabis.
In next weeks edition:
Sugar lobby says sugar is a good source of energy. And oil lobby says fast cars are super-cool.
Surely April Fools?
The whole concept of tiered pension contributions for GPs should end. All it means in reality is full time GPs pay a higher contribution (percentage) than part time GPs. That is not necessarily fair and anything which discourages working longer hours should be removed. We clearly cannot change the overall tax system, but small changes like this might make a difference in terms of increasing the total number of GP sessions available.
The sickness system needs to evolve too. Why should a GP with 2 five session partner roles at different surgeries have better NHS sickness coverage than a GP with a 10 session role in a single surgery? Seems to just penalise working full time.
It has been stripped of cervical screening because of poor service.
Why is the same not happened with the poor performance of primary care services in general?
I would say their handling of primary care and pensions is much much worse than their handling of cervical screening.
The only difference is cervical leads to more headlines, but if NHS England are making decisions solely based on what hits the headlines most; they are doing something very wrong.
For one (I might be the only one) I agree with him.
I think over the next 12 months a 10000 GP practice will benefit from
92p/ patient uplift minus 45p/ patient less extended hours = 47p/ patient
1.50 patient for simply signing up to do the network business, even if your network does no work, employs nobody and does not actually do anything.
I wont include the funding for network admin - as that does not help the practice run, but it is funded and fairly generously.
AND the 10 half time GPs that run that practice will have their indemnity reduced from 8000 to 800 saving 70000 - or 7 pounds per patient
Minus losing 10000 in the partial indemnity refund - so more like 60000 or 6 pounds per patient.
So an uplift total of
0.47+1.5+6 = 8 pounds per patient.
When was the last time GPs had an uplift of anywhere near 8 pounds/ patient?
There might be some boring admin with networks - but making them effective is just an opportunity and totally optional. The extended hours should just be devolved down, and the network can decline to employ anyone and you will be fine. If you 'choose' to have a 70% discount on employing staff via the network, that sounds like a good deal to me.... but it is optional.
The real cost is surely calculated by ADDING together the extra work created by this scheme to the work that could have been saved if the same funding was delivered to primary care without any strings attached.
At a time when every practice is wasting thousands and thousands of pounds joining and administering networks, surely someone must realise that the control group of giving that finding directly to existing primary care, without political strings, might deliver better value for money.
@fedup and turnout the lights.
The reason the price per session seems so low, is that you think it is for GP sessions. In the current extended hours enhanced service, there is no stipulation for there to be ANY GP time.
A 50000 GP network would need 25 hours a week for 1500 pounds per week (based on 3p a week, so a little higher than the actual figure.)
60 pounds per hour is certainly not enough for GP time, but is more than enough for phlebotomist time.
SO what your saying is the global sum has actually NOT increased by 92p;
it has infact increased by just 47p; with an extra 45p which is to be put towards extended hours.
So giving practices an extra 47p/ patient; and expecting all staff to have a 2% payrise out of that is slightly concerning maths by all involved.
MUST say no.
Use it as an opportunity to review what else you should be saying no to. Anything related to a catheter is a good example.
AND use it as an opportunity to decide if other enhanced serviced are undervalued and need to be declined. E.g. EVERY surgery declining to take blood would be interesting.
The main issue with the 4 hour standard, is it consistently shows that the current NHS, under a conservative government, does much much worse than the NHS under the last labour government. At that time the target was 98% and regularly being met. Now it is 95% and routinely missed.