This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

Gold, incentives and meh

GP leaders launch new attack on QOF prevalence deal

By Steve Nowottny

LMC leaders in London have angrily protested against QOF prevalence changes which will see GPs across the capital lose an estimated £11m.

Motions submitted by LMCs across London to this year's LMCs conference reveal mounting fury over the funding shakeup, which has hit the capital's practices far harder than those in other parts of the country.

A joint motion filed by Hillingdon LMC and supported by seven individual LMCs across the capital ‘deplores the introduction of QOF prevalence changes which disproportionately disadvantage London practices' and demands the GPC implements a motion passed at the 2004 LMCs conference calling for London weighting.

Another motion also submitted by Hillingdon LMC is fiercely critical of the GPC's wider negotiating strategy.

It reads: ‘That conference is disappointed by the failure of the negotiators to prevent the many changes to the GP contract that have had the effect of increasing workload with no commensurate increase in income.'

Other motions focus particularly on the predicted impact of the scrapping of the square root formula, with Lewisham LMC filing a motion which ‘deplores the substantial loss of income projected for very large numbers of practices as a result of the QOF prevalence changes.'

Brent LMC goes even further, not only expressing concern for practices losing out, but explicitly blaming ‘the failure of the negotiations to have estimated these shortfalls.'

A motion from Wandsworth LMC acknowledges the increasing tensions between GPs in the capital and beyond. It ‘deplores the growing rift within the NHS and the profession between London and other parts of the United Kingdom.'

The LMCs conference takes place on 11 and 12 June in central London.

Last year's LMCs conference Last year's LMCs conference

Rate this article 

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Have your say