Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

NHS cuts PMS funding without setting plans to reinvest in general practice

NHS managers have admitted that they cut PMS funding without planning how to reinvest it in primary care - a practice that has been banned by the NHS England board.

The acknowledgement, from NHS England (East), comes in light of a patient group complaint sent to NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens yesterday.

However, the area team has said that it began the process before the national NHS guidance was circulated to NHS England’s director of commissioning Rosamond Roughton last month.

Under the guidance, NHS England area teams were told not to remove funding from PMS practices as part of the review of all contracts until a decision had been made by CCGs on how they would reinvest it into general practice.

The patient group's letter, shared with Pulse, said the NHS West Norfolk CCG had not published any proposals regarding the funding taken from Vida Healthcare - which is losing around £550,000 in PMS funding.

Patient group representative Dan O’Connor highlighted that this was against the guidance issued by Ms Roughton.

He wrote: '[NHS] West Norfolk CCG failed to comply with the NHS director of commissioning’s instructions, no proposals were published, nor were patients consulted - and the cuts to Vida’s funding are already taking place. This is completely unacceptable.

'As representatives of Vida’s 30,000-plus patients, we are therefore asking that Vida’s funding be restored immediately until these detailed proposals are published and discussed, and this matter has been fully investigated. We are also asking for a detailed explanation as to why WNCCG failed to comply with Rosamond Roughton’s instructions.'

But NHS England (East) locality director Joanna Yellon said: 'Ros Roughton’s letter was issued on 16 May 2016, after the review in Norfolk had been completed.

'This review was completed for all practices in East Anglia by September 2015. The outcome of the review saw funding reductions across a number of practices in the area, including Vida Healthcare who currently hold a large PMS contract across a number of sites in West Norfolk.

'In line with the national timeline funding reduction began in October 2015 and will be phased over four years with the money being reinvested by all CCGs, including West Norfolk.'

She added that NHS West Norfolk CCG 'will be submitting their plans for the redistribution of the monies by the end of summer [2016]'.

How PMS funding is being cut

PMS gravestone

PMS gravestone

The national review of PMS premiums aims to ‘redeploy’ funding across GP practices

One of the GP partners at the Vida Healthcare group practice previously told Pulse that their PMS review has resulted in a planned reduction to its funding of at least £250,000 annually, which would force it to cut back patient services.

The health secretary has rejected an appeal from the practice against the cuts, following an earlier rejection from NHS England and Vida Healthcare's patient group, along with local MP Sir Henry Bellingham MP met with a health minister last month to discuss the situation.

It has also considered joining an existing legal case against PMS cuts brought by patients of a practice based in Huddersfield.

 

Readers' comments (5)

  • A PMS surgery has earnings per partner of nearly £250 k
    How they managed that and £400 k savings fund holding is beyond me. Apparently all negotiated and will do little more than most others do, apart from epidurals
    These guys are serious earners and many others around the country .
    Dispensers are another group

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There is no redistribution in the NHS. Any money cut is gobbled by salaries and cronies of NHSE big shots with nimble wits. Liquidate NHSE and you may find things will move but before that cleansing of Hunt.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Was PMS good value for money ? If it was then extend it to all practices . If it wasn't why did it last so long ? Please show us the evidence.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • PMS funding is high but equalizing opportunity doesn't mean cutting funding- it means increasing resources where there is underfunding - in GMS. Disproportionate funding in PMS is resulting in disproportionate cuts crippling the level of services and income the Practices were used to. Had to come sooner or later in this climate of austerity.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • GP land is riven with toxic maldistribution of funds, some GPs earn 3X others.
    The answer is to uplift the bottom feeders [ they do so badly in CQC { a case of multiple jeopardy}], not decrease funding from higher earners and not put it into GP land.
    If we continue to accept this as Contractors, they will continue to do so.
    Undated resignations is not really the answer.
    Rather, dated resignations. From this day, the NHS GP ceases to exist.
    To stop bankruptcies, a payment structure from such another day starts.
    It has to be a planned resignation, giving both parties enough time to prepare for alternatives.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say