This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

The sting in the tail of the 2% 'pay rise'

The Government's 4.2% contractual funding uplift fails to convince, finds Sofia Lind

GP practices will receive a 4.2% uplift to total funding in 2018/19, after the Government concluded its review of public sector pay rises this week.

They said this would translate to a 2% pay rise for GP partners, backdated to 1 April, and would be enough to cover practices to increase pay for salaried GPs and other staff by the same amount.

But the announcement – the first official statement from new health secretary Matt Hancock - was not received well by the BMA GP Committee, which pointed out that the 2% so-called pay rise was below the 4% recommended by the independent pay review body – that, they say, was needed ‘simply to keep services for patients running’.

GPC chair Dr Richard Vautrey said: 'It is deeply concerning that the Government has chosen not to honour the findings of its own independent pay review body across the entire NHS, but specifically for GPs.’

DDRB recommends 4% pay rise

The Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration was emphatic in its recommendation that GPs must receive a higher pay award than the 2% it recommended across doctor and dentist specialists to improve retention.

It listed a number of ongoing pressures on GP partners, including:

  • Changes to their role and demand increase ‘as a result of the greater integration of healthcare with social care’;
  • The ‘increasing demands posed by a rising and an ageing population with more complex needs’;
  • The ‘increasing regulatory and administrative burden of running practices’
  • A ‘decreasing willingness’ on the part of younger GPs ‘to work the number of sessions their predecessors worked’, and their tendency to ‘prefer salaried employment to practice ownership’; and
  • The ‘fact that average gross earnings for [GPs], both contracted and salaried, were lower in nominal terms in 2015-16 than in 2006-07’.

The DDRB report concluded: [W]e believe that if sufficient number of GMPs are either to be recruited from overseas or encouraged to remain in the service longer than they otherwise would have done, a pay response is required now. Such a response needs to be significant and go beyond our recommended base increase for the pay remit group as a whole.’

It recommended that GPs should receive an additional 2% pay increase, above and beyond the minimum 2% rise recommended for the doctor profession as a whole.

However, the Government’s statement took a different approach to the same problem.

Mr Hancock said: ‘GPs face a significant challenge in numbers and we need to recruit large numbers over a short period, meaning any pay rise needs to be balanced against our aim for a growing number of practitioners.’

Dr Vautrey was scathing in his analysis of the stance: ‘For the new secretary of state to commit, only last week, to addressing the workforce crisis in general practice and raise hopes of investment in primary care, to now dash those hopes, will signal to dedicated GPs and their staff that they are not valued.’

GP accountant Bob Senior, head of the medical services team at RSM and chair of the Association of Independent Specialist Medical Accountants (AISMA), said the uplift would not ‘do much to help with recruitment nor retention’.

He said: ‘Even if it did translate to a 2% increase in practice profits – and I don’t know if it will, with inflation running at 3% and all of the added cost pressures – I wouldn’t say it is adequate.

‘I doubt there are many GPs who thought that it would be a big increase but they will be disappointed that the Government isn’t putting the extra £20bn promised for the NHS into general practice.’

1% extra funding uplift dependent on contract reform

Thrown in as an added bonus, the Government said GPs would be getting an extra 1% pay rise from April 2019, if they agree to the contract reforms that are currently under discussion (including the partnership model review, sweeping QOF changes, and a move to a funding model enabling 'digital-first' general practice).

When pushed to explain the meaning of this – would GPs get a maximum 1% pay rise next year? Just like during the years of austerity public sector pay caps? The Department of Health and Social Care explained that no, this would go into the contract baseline, and form the starting point from which next year’s uplift negotiations would begin.

A Department of Health spokesperson told Pulse that GPs are getting the standard 1% pay lift this year and the extra 1% backdated to April 2018.

The other 1% on top of that is conditional on agreement to a multi-year contract. If that is agreed, the pay award for 2019/20 will start from that baseline figure – 3% more than 2017/18. In effect, this will be very minimum they will receive.

Whether this 1% extra incentive will mean much for GPs is another matter, but it does make clear the importance the Government is putting on contract reform.

Mr Senior said: ‘I think there are likely to be bits in there that the GPs won’t like – otherwise the Government wouldn’t be taking this approach.’

In numbers – the Government’s GP pay announcement

  • Total GP funding uplift rises from the 3.4% provisional uplift announced in April to 4.2%.
  • An additional 1% uplift to the contract baseline to be applied from April 2019, subject to contract reform agreement.
  • The DHSC claims this translates to a 2% pay uplift for GP partners - 'worth £2,000 per year to a GP contractor with a median taxable income of £100,000' and 'around £1,052 for a salaried GP with a median taxable income of £52,600'.
  • Minimum and maximum pay scales for salaried GPs will rise by 2% from 1 October.
  • The GP trainer grant and GP appraiser fees will be increased by 3% from 1 October.

Source: Department of Health and Social Care


Readers' comments (18)

  • Just Your Average Joe

    I think 20% a good point to start if wanting contract change and even more work foisted onto Primary care - and still a good chance would want to say no to another sh!t@ contact unilaterally imposed without any evidence base for changes.

    'The ‘fact that average gross earnings for [GPs], both contracted and salaried, were lower in nominal terms in 2015-16 than in 2006-07’.'

    10 years negative pay - and most of our colleagues still engaged fully in CCG and NHS England foist cheaper care on GPs plan.

    Say no to all hospital work being farmed out to GPs - before they come out with more twaddle like ear wax is a GP problem.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Utter fool, you are spot on. I would go further and say that we are selected for our placidly for medical school. Government wants sheep, not wolves.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Retiring in a month aged 58. Then year in Australia working 30 hours a week for more money to top things up and travel. I used to be all for the NHS, as a patient I still am, but as a worker you do what is best for you. There is never any loyalty between employer and employee or contractor and contractee when the pressure is on. Either can walk away at any time.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 2% 4% who cares. 50%?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • No thanks, keep the 1%. Also GPs need to cut jobs which we are not paid for and cost us. We stopped ; extended hrs, Nursing home, letters for benefits/housing, spirometry and ecg`s, minor surgery. Has made the practice more profitable ! and less stressful.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Utter fool and Hogwash tend to agree with you both. Cannot imagine my trainer tolerating the nonsense and cost of the CSA etc. Situation reminds me of Morecame and Wise doing Mastermind 'some years ago' (pretentious academic beaten by opportunistic ill-educated chap - still funny).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think GP's should stop accepting any form of pay-rise however pathetic it might be. Instead they should reject extra workload. If the rejection is not accepted just strike.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Unfortunately partners are locked into premises ownership and may be financially castrated by any redundancies if the practice closes
    I think large practice groups may stem the tide for a while as shared staff will carry out the admin work cheaply as less duplication.
    I think we should press the government to adopt a total salaried model then we will see what happens as everyone works to the BMA contract and the government not partners should the cost of locums, staff sick pay, HR issues etc.
    The government should also buy out all the premises at market prices.
    In 2004 when GPs opted out of OOH the government got quite a shock when OOH sessions failed to be filled once it was not compulsory.
    I agree this government has a pay vendetta against GPs and show a startling lack of respect.
    This is partly the result of GPs being too busy to have time to band together and just as we were never trained as administrators and managers we were never trained as negotiators and politicians
    Is there a time of reckoning? It depends on when the camel's back breaks- its creaking now!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say