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

Letter of the week - No level playing field for salaried GPs

The sense I get from the GPC is that it does not appreciate the position of salaried GPs (‘Pay gap dividing the profession', News, 7 November).

Salaried GPs working for PMS practices do not even have a standard BMA contract affording them certain rights and protections. There are situations with salaried GPs working for PMS practices under no national terms and conditions with no guarantee of even cost-of-living pay rises, and they're feeling exploited.

Other salaried GPs are working far over the odds in terms of workload, doing similar work to partners, but not getting the rewards because they're not involved in the partnership. What you're seeing is a two-tier system.

Also, the current retirement rules are leading some partners well past their 60s to continue working, while some salaried doctors in the same practices are not being given the opportunity to progress. There's no incentive to retire or take on a new partner in the current financial climate. There is therefore a stagnation among salaried doctors.

There are issues to focus on other than just the headline salary figures. What is more important is that the contract terms for salaried doctors ensure they get a fair deal. Some salaried GPs are without contracts even in GMS practices, where it is a requirement of the practice to issue the national contract.

There seems to be a widespread practice of salaried GPs working way over a 37.5-hour week if full-time, without additional remuneration, and that is where we see a disparity in pay.

That's the most concerning thing for me.

From Dr David Barrett, Hinckley, Leicestershire

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