If only CCGs had GPs leading them....oh hang on, they supposedly have!
Dear CCG GPs,
Get off your hands and do something about investing in general practice, especially if your finance leads now support it.
How do we know that is different from any time in history.......?
Also 1 in 8 Americans thinks Elvis is alive!
Don't forget we are scientists.
End is nigh, broken record, Kailash, meanwhile lots of the country is getting on with a quiet revolution towards scale....and for them it seems to be working.
Conspiracy is sexy, but you credit the administration with a malign plan, where there is none.
GPC position is to support thousands of GP paying nothing to NHSPS....I am not suggesting threatening letters from layers is OK but in the real world it was bound to happen..wake up and pay what you think is reasonable and dispute the rest...
Enough....we can get 6 figure salaries for working 4 days a week 45 weeks a year without on call....run that past the general public and see how much sympathy you get.
Well done for sharing some concrete information on what is happening
Over 130 GPs have taken it last year and 200 places this year, and it is tax free as it is a salary supplement, not a bursary - worked for some folk I know...
Most businesses would be pleased to see a rationalisation of their markets, as it makes the remainder more viable. This happens in all markets.
Lets face it, there are probably too many small practices out there struggling to do everything you would want for your family in an era of modern general practice.
Welcome funding for local decisions about initiatives, as problems appear to be different in different parts of the country. Perhaps this will help GPs feel more valued by NHSE.
My understanding is nobody can force us into an ACO, and devil will be in detail of the deal e.g. return ticket, which you won't find here....
Unless the GPs in Manchester and Dudley are from a different GP tribe, (those who HAVE looked at the detail), there might be a sensible way to engage here...
More detail on reality please Pulse, not inane 'end is nigh' merchants
Well done Mike. Tide might be turning...
Not enough being said about how great partnership can be to us youngsters (certainly not from course organisers)
Autonomy to innovate
Longer deeper team relationships
Usually better income
Get to know your patients and their families
Not to mention, state gifting you a share in a building if you own
On the other hand...
Partners actively decide between profits and access...
Better organised practices gat the staff - lesson in there...
We want influence on commissioning but suggest we send the CCG GPs back to the frontline...
I have sympathy where environment makes running an SME business impossible, but don't let us infantilise ourselves here.
Calculation is surely whether supply led demand + rework outweighs patients who can be enticed to self manage completely (e.g. Choices or signpost) + savings from cases closed faster than 10 minutes + cases seen faster because you have the history laid out already.
May not work if you only think in 10 minute units for all contacts, but will be more efficient if you can do online consults in less than 10 minutes, which, judging from how GPs process letters, most can.
Public trust in doctors is too important a sacrifice to make for 'public interest' in this case.
Not sure some of these comments are entirely fair....am I the only one who got CQC paid, £1/patient for indemnity, resilience money, time for care leadership training, online consulting paid for, pharmacy subsidy and training for care navigation and correspondence handling?
Maybe some balance is needed if we are to have a debate on whether this is enough, or the right plan here...
You have reported the appointments are bookable by call handlers but I heard it is only by 111 GPs (who will presumably close a number of cases that would have come our way).
Is this correct?
My understanding is that any movement of QoF money into global sum creates winners and losers as it is done by redistributing a fixed QoF pot of money, so be careful what you wish for. May be the devil you know...
Nobody stops GP partners servicing demand how they want now. If we are asking for 40% of our average daily numbers to go elsewhere it won't be long before they have to take away the money to pay for that which will threaten the viability of most practices. Not sure this has been thought through adequately.
Is nobody going to draw a distinction between paying GPs to refer less (unacceptable) and paying GPs to do the work they would usually have referred (assuming equally good patient care) e.g. GPSI in dermatology (acceptable).
Unclear from CCG feedback what happened here....but this may have succeeded in poisoning the well for the latter i.e a disservice to our profession. Maybe should have looked harder here Pulse as you may have handed the press a stick to beat us with....
Is this reduction controlling for the fact that partners are also becoming more part-time so you would expect to see a drop in earnings per GP (NHS Digital statistics)?
Fairly meaningless stat otherwise.