I am one of those 40% who thinks charging would be the only thing that could save NHS GP as well as the vast majority of patients from a future dangerous third rate service.
The net £60-70 / patient/ year income GPs get after expenses could be doubled. That income together with the decreased demand would allow for consultations to be 2-3 X longer.
The extra staff needed to allow that sort of lengthened consultation would come from GPs and other Practitioners encouraged by a much more pleasant work situation from leaving the service in one way or another.
Yes, on average patients would have to pay about £60 a year to get this quality potentially life saving service. They would be issued with a card from a DOH intermediate organization that they simply scan at the Practice desk for co-payment and the organization bills the patient but pays the GP. If the patient truely cannot afford the amount they can make a representation to DOH/intermediate for it to be waived.
That was easy!
Is this is the 90% of the 50% left following the burn out of the others?
"Dr Scott said the workload for each patient in a nursing home is often up to 20 times that of an average patient".
Yet the funding is very far from that....
Essentially patients are allowed to bully GPs and do. One bullying tool they use a lot is the Complaint system.
Massey at the DOH....
How many GPs prepared to work over the age of 60 are working much less than they might have done 5 years ago?
My estimate is at least 50% less. This also impacts workforce numbers.
If the whole complaints procedure was not so heavily weighted in favour of demanding patients, perhaps GPs would be encouraged to say "no" more often.
This is about payments and Pensions too and from recent personal experience I think we all have to very frightened about the one word comment above.
How about a monthly (you only have to return quarterly)MCQ that includes all facets of clinically current thought e.g Conditions , treatment , prescribing , NB interactions, NB NICE guidelines and so forth.
You return it to an automated process that scores you and returns the form with referenced answers and allows you to complete again if you failed.
This would be practical and educative.
Looking forward to the new "Sleep in your Surgery LES" - not sure if comment above is tongue in cheek written at 02:28am?
This is the maximum most GPs would want to earn anyway.
When you calculate the total contributions of 29% odd on the pensionable amount ( at least 10% below the 130,000 ) you will probably end up with a net of about £100,000 just on the threshold (if any greater) of whittling away your Personal Allowance at a rate of 62% tax.
That figure was very carefully determined...
There are so many things killing our Profession right now that I don't think that just one entity should be singled out.
20 July 2017
"President Macron of France faced his most serious test yet when the armed forces chief resigned, saying he could not guarantee security with the present defence budget."
Similarly GPs cannot guarantee safety with the present Health Budget
This is cherry picking in Capitation.
There are some patients that never come - but others can attend the Surgery 20 times a year.
If they want PbR then by all means be fair about this and introduce it.....
I agree that he was kept because nobody else wanted the job at this stage.
On the positive side, the PM has been tough so far and I think he was allowed to stay on condition he cleaned up his act and softened his stance towards the pillars of the NHS.
You can say that again!
GP Partner Swindon
Can somebody explain if there is a flaw in these figures:
The CQC is half funded by the Government and half by Providers.
The 2015 /16 CQC Income is: Government £120 million and Providers £113 million.
Therefore a 40% decrease by Government amounts to £48 million which it expects providers to pick up on(!).
Nevertheless £48 million added to our £113 million should be a 42% increase next year (not the 85% proposed)with inflationary increases after that ( and not a 667% increase by 2019/20).
This begs the question of what the CQC is hoping to do with the eventual 667% it is asking for!
Stating GP Practice income will be helpful in giving transparency to the detail of work we do.
I often ask acquaintances what they think GPs should earn on average per patient annually taking into account that patients have potentially unlimited access to GP and Nurse appointments including telephonic advice, phlebotomy, minor procedures and home visits. One family member who thought we were overpaid suggested £500. I asked our Community Matron while discussing some of our patients uncovered by Risk Stratification and she said £1500!
To be transparent:- GPs are allocated just 8% of the NHS Budget. The average GP gets just £59 per patient per annum net of Practice expenses. They are paid £130 gross but average expenses run at 57% of income. Included in that £130 figure is £20 for QOF (Quality Outcomes Framework). The problem with QOF is that it is about money that achieves Government targets rather than a resource used for acute patient care. How hard GPs work for their income and the value this provides is reflected in that £59/annum figure (£4.92/month or £1.13/week). Fulltime GPs will take home less than half this amount after taxation and pension contributions that have doubled over the past several years though providing a lesser end benefit.
Our biggest concern however is whether with the resources at hand and the ever increasing amount of work we are expected to do for the same income, we can continue to provide quality care to all, including the growing population of older complex frail patients with increasing co-morbidity.