NHSE will probably spend more money than they will recoup, but at least they won't have missed the opportunity to slur GPs.
Sounds like theft to me. Are we indentured to SoS?
What a meagre excuse for this bunch of morally destitute cowboys to go to war again with a profession. Others have remarked on the sinister and purposeful nature of this; hostile environment - asserting control by making us scared and cowed.
Does Simon Stevens have anything to say on our behalf?
I would request that BMA take QC's legal advice.
The (unmeasurable) unmet medical needs of the population will grow, while patients bounce around the system from noctor to noctor.
Poor, verging on pathetic, response from the three thinktanks.
No exploration or analysis of what it means when medical care denied becomes 'social' care offered.
Where is the demand for an Inquiry into the unprecedented, damaging and culpable failure of workforce planning arising directly from changes due to the H&SC Act 2012?
Well said, Prof Stokes-Lampard.
UK GPs are the reason why the NHS has proved to be so cost-efficient and cost-effective for the last 70yrs. That is all about to change. There is no reason whatsoever that this could not have been anticipated and planned for.
Some of those badly-needed GPs have run away to the private sector and portfolio jobs. Perhaps they could be enticed back, but not to this performance-managed NHSE flea circus.
Doctors' professionalism has been inexorably eroded by NHSE while they've down-sized the NHS and its offer, deliberately creating silo-driven postcode lotteries while endorsing increasingly spurious denial of evidence-based medical care across the country. See: teachers/barristers/police....
I agree with Drs Silman and Sanders. Cross-discipline training contributes enormously to our clinical and nuanced understanding of specialties.
It helps to build our knowledge and skills as specialised generalists. We are first and foremost doctors. I still relate back to my hospital learning, every single day.
Oh sorry, I meant 2016/17 Type 2 Forms.
I don't expect the 2017/18 forms will be ready before 2021 if Capita continue to hold the contract.
I think Capita are not only incompetent, they are lying while trying to blame GPs for leaving it until the last minute.
I know this is a lie because I have been consistently requesting 2017/18 Type 2 pension forms from Capita for over one year. Their consistent response was: "they haven't been released yet".
Type 2 forms were only published by Capita approximately four weeks ago for 2017/18. The pre-filled boxes were filled incorrectly by Capita (total all pensionable earnings=£0).
The deadline for submission was today. Given Capita's error, and the known impossibility of speaking to anyone at Capita, let alone getting help - it seems that Capita are trying to make it so difficult to submit real-time pension info that, when it comes to retirement and the money hasn't appeared at NHSPA in our TRS, I expect Capita will claim no knowledge.
I wonder if they're planning to do a Phillip Green.
"I am sick to death of the possibility that various people in the medical profession might be out there repeatedly misusing their position..."
Strange comment, especially if from a doctor.
The people in the medical profession most likely to be "repeatedly misusing their position" are those who have bypassed evidence, peer review and consultation to have sanctioned this poor model of primary care, regardless of its inability to serve a whole general practice population.
Whether I need a smear, Home Treatment Team, or midwife care, being 100miles away matters.
If it can't serve the entire local population, it isn't general practice.
Interesting that "research has shown 50 million" unnecessary GP consultations.
As I understand it, no official figures for numbers of GP consultations have been collected for 8yrs. One may ask, why not?
AI is most (very) likely to increase supply-led demand, not to decrease it.
Hancock has his sights firmly set on industry-led expansion in the NHS,for the benefit of industry, not for patient care.
Hence the peremptory surge, despite a dearth of positive research and despite significant evidence of shortcomings.
Citing GPs as an example of existing privatisation in the NHS is just ridiculous. GPs work strictly within NHS framework in structure, function and ethos.
If you imagine that Virgin running GP services is the same as NHS GPs, then either you aren't a doctor at all or you simply don't understand the issues.
Evidence for privatisation is now in every sector of the NHS. Evidence for failure of many of these private contracts through incompetence, fraud and mismanagement is damning.
70% of all new NHS contracts (43% by value) last year were given to private sector.
The average value of new private sector contracts awarded is increasing substantially year on year.
And that's just outsourcing. Privatisation works in other forms too, eg Marsden relying on private funding now for one third of its income; or US Health Insurance corporation hired to design and direct STP/ACO development; private provider companies sitting on commissioning Boards as part of ACO structure; rationing of services/treatments to force more patients to seek private treatment/insurance... it's a long and multi-faceted list.
Please check your registration MS and,if you find out that you are indeed a doctor, start doing some research.
'NHS practices receive six times more funding for each 85-year-old woman than they do for a 15-44 year old man."
So the man who took over Hinchingbrooke hospital while CEO of Circle, now given another shoe-in by NHS England as CEO of Babylon, has no clue how NHS General Practice is funded.
Is this ignorance, or meant to be deliberately misleading? I've heard it quoted repeatedly, which suggests the latter.
The worst aspect of these disruptive innovators is that they think chaos is great and so are wilfully blind to the damage that their greedy business models inflict.
Yes, ACOs/ICSs will indeed mean the end of general practice as we know it.
Despite promises of up to five (actually three) 'options' for alignment of GP contract with ACOs, in truth there is only one pathway/mechanism for this arrangement.
ACOs must - and will - eventually take over GP lists, thereby dissolving the GMS contract, forever.
General Practice is intended to become an outreach arm of secondary care.
A set of "informal arrangements" we are told by NHSE. Yes, let's informally dismantle the NHS, but pretend that everything good about it will stay the same.
It sounds like this is a failure to develop or maintain a register. I think we should be informed ASAP exactly what did transpire.
This extreme punishment/sanction/reckless disenfranchisement of 14,000 patients probably has no bearing whatsoever on clinical care.
If this is a proportionate response from the CQC, then we must be looking at a Practice full of child-abusing Shipmans. Is that the case or not?
If not, then BMA please get legal advice on this seemingly dangerous and power-mad gambit by CQC.
I use words according to their definitions.
I use evidence to inform my opinions and the evidence is on my side, not yours, which just goes to show that you haven't read it and therefore don't know what you're talking about.
The rest is your desperate trolling. So, goodbye.
Extraordinary comments from people who should know better, if they are even doctors at all...
Suggestions that the NHS is 'ruinously expensive' and a 'bottomless pit' are ignorant politicised tropes, and completely wrong when you look at the global evidence on health costs and the economic multipliers of a functioning health system.
Suggestions that we'd be better off with some insurance in a privatised system? Hmm, more expensive overall and certainly more expensive to the consumer. Fans of British Gas plc, I assume.
Is money the answer? If we were to have equitable funding with Germany or Sweden, the UK would have £24bn more to spend each year, now. Problem solved, with actual spare capacity for say, a 'flu pandemic or a terrorist attack.
Is the problem the Tory govt? Yes, because it can be shown by their policies, legislation and lies that they are deliberately and knowingly allowing the NHS to fall into disrepair, with lives being lost daily because of them.
As for OOH's pay-for-blame NHS model, when one of your children travels in a car with a drunk driver who causes a crash, I'm sure you'd be the first to sell your house to pay for his ITU care, not to mention the years of neuro rehab.
It's only when these rather smug people who don't bother to read evidence actually have a close relative in need of prompt and expert care that they might decide that perhaps they need and value a functioning NHS after all.
If anything, GPs refer too few patients, not too many.
Cutting referrals presumes the opposite and misses the point of system underfunding.
"Incentivising" GPs to cut referrals is unethical, immoral and stupid. Whoever exhumed this zombie needs retiring.
In the light of Dr Bawa Garba, we also now know that GMC will hang us out to dry for failures that we have no control over, regardless of the systemic issues.
Reduction in emergency admissions is "pretty stark": I'd call 0.9/1,000 (3.67%) reduction "pretty meaningless" actually. P value??
As mentioned above, once you iron out natural variation, substitute servicing (eg a GPwSI doing a Consultant's clinic is still seeing those patients, with some duplication of workload), and pump-priming, these vanguards appear to be an expensive waste of scant resources.
NHSE are absolutely desperate to show that they're of some use, otherwise how would you persuade the English NHS to adopt an American model of health care infrastructure?
2012 data. Since then we've had introduced: electronic prescribing (with integral alerts), Scriptswitch, Practice Pharmacist, and CCG Prescribing Management Team oversight.
Firstly, I doubt the 2012 figure is correct.
Secondly, with Jeremy Hunt failing to act on Francis's main findings and stifling NICE's work on safe clinical staffing ratios; ignoring staffing, funding and beds crises of his making; and hiding the damage that 2012 and subsequent reforms are doing to patients - I hardly think, 'Herbert', that he can be framed as a champion for patient safety.
BTW, I am forced by prescribing software to choose "medication error" option when cancelling an issue of any drug on patients' medication list...which may cast some doubt on the quality of information that is being thrown at us.
If the need to reduce NHS spending is so great, Hunt should reverse the current privatisation process; there is copious evidence to show it will double costs. Savings from charges depend on costs of implementation, which will be complex and inefficient - and in the case of 'medical card' ID, subject to fraud. People on holiday in UK and non-residents are currently NOT entitled to free non-emergency care anyway and the GPregistration process does a fair job to enforce this. Migrant students' highest use of healthcare here is probably contraception and sexual health, so it would likely be more cost effective for it to remain free.
I also strongly recommend those in favour of charges should question the Govt's ostensibly inflated savings figures. This is a deliberate measure to install a preliminary framework for screening patients' entitlement to care at the point of use, such as the one denying treatment to millions of people in USA.
My understanding from working across about a hundred practices is that all appointment systems have been tried at some time and all work well initially... DF system is a move towrds remote consulting which has significant safety concerns attached. The current squeeze on access is entirely due to uncontrolled multiplication of routine, doctor-driven appointments to satisfy QOF and national safety standard requirements. Has ANYBODY actually enumerated the annual quantity of appointments generated by QOF?