This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

CAMHS won't see you now

Giving GP practices extra funding 'could cut hospital costs by 10%'

Cutting back the minimum practice income guarantee (MPIG) 'may be counterproductive' because it could lead to rising costs in secondary care, researchers have warned.

A study analysing the relationship between funding of GMS and PMS practices and patient use of hospital services found that MPIG-receiving practices had lower A&E usage and fewer emergency admissions among their patients.

The Government announced five years ago that it would abolish the MPIG gradually over a seven-year period between 2013 and 2020.

But the study, published in the British Journal of General Practice, suggests that giving practices a higher rate of supplements could reduce the cost of secondary care by 9.8%.

The report said that for MPIG practices, there was 'a clear association between higher levels of funding and reduced secondary care utilisation'.

The authors speculated the same outcome was not seen for 'better funded PMS practices' because they had reached a level of funding where it no longer had an impact on secondary care savings.

The study concluded: 'The findings suggest that capitation payments are broadly aligned to patient need, at least in terms of secondary care usage. However, supplements to the current capitation formula may produce a reduction in secondary care costs.

'If these findings are borne out by further studies, proposed reductions in capitation supplements may be counterproductive.'

The Kings College London researchers analysed Department of Health funding data for 7,478 practices in England (excluding APMS contracts) in 2014/15 and compared this with DH data on hospital use.

The authors conducted financial modelling which showed that if the capitation supplement was doubled, this would cost £5,700 per 1,000 registered patients.

They found that investment in primary care would be associated with a £6,300 reduction in secondary care costs, representing an overall 9.8% saving in secondary care costs.

Lead researcher Dr Mark Ashworth, clinical senior lecturer of the Department of General Practice and Primary Care and a GP of 30 years, said the additional payment 'was more than offset by the financial savings in hospital costs'.

He added: 'Put another way, practices with lower capitation supplements had higher secondary care costs. Cutting capitation supplements is likely to be a false economy.

‘Primary care is the health economic jewel in the crown of the NHS.’


Readers' comments (6)

  • No way Sherlock - what we always knew - lower funding = less people = less time = higher referral rates as well as prescribing costs etc - perhaps CCGs will sit up and take notice - they could do more to fund GPs - although not double

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    For those old enough to remember how MPIG existed in the first place , history reminds us that there was certainly flaws in the formula calculating our global sum leading to inequality amongst practices, No lesson was learnt but only gave excuses to politicians to exercise stealth austerity.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment


    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Have always known this - less money in primary care means less GPs , less nurses less appointment

    More people sent to AE - government said Walk in centres will sort this and surprise surprise hasn't!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • AlanAlmond

    That's all very well but Jeremy hasn't finished punishing GPs just yet. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • National Hopeless Service

    Wearing shoes stops your feet getting wet.........

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say