This site is intended for health professionals only
Tuesday 22 May 2012
Facebook Twiter Linkedin

DH plans to purge up to 2.5m patients from GP lists

By Andrew McNicoll | 23 Nov 2011

Exclusive The Department of Health is planning a national list-cleansing campaign to remove up to 2.5 million ‘ghost patients' from GP lists across England, in a move that could cost an average practice as much as £30,000.

Ministers want list validation to be stepped up nationwide in an effort to clean practice lists by April 2013, when clinical commissioning groups will be set budgets based on their registered populations.

CCGs are set to be handed responsibility for pruning member practices' lists as part of the authorisation process for commissioning, raising fears the policy could further drive a wedge between their leaders and grassroots GPs.

The shift to setting budgets by registrations, rather than the population estimates used for PCT funding, has sparked alarm among politicians that cash could be handed over for patients who don't exist.

A Commons public accounts committee report claimed in some areas the number of patients registered at practices was 25% higher than the estimated local population.

DH officials said their latest estimate was that GP lists held 2.5 million more patients than population estimates, and revealed a major clampdown that could see an average of 330 patients removed per practice.

The DH plans to launch a ‘diagnostic exercise' to flush out PCTs that ‘have still to carry out meaningful action', hand the NHS Commissioning Board direct responsibility for ‘improving' list cleansing and link list ‘accuracy' to CCG authorisation.

Una O'Brien, DH permanent secretary, told the committee: ‘We are undertaking list cleansing and about to take that a step further in the expectations that will be placed on PCT clusters and CCGs. Our intention is… accuracy of lists is included in authorisation of CCGs, so there is a stop point where they have to demonstrate lists are sufficiently up to date to enable them to take on budget responsibilities.'

A DH spokesperson said: ‘We are working to ensure PCTs give priority to updating GP lists prior to the NHS Commissioning Board taking on responsibility for commissioning primary care [in April 2013].'

The exercise is due to start when the Audit Commission publishes data from its existing programme, aiming to cut duplicate registration. Its report was due this month, but is now expected in January. Experts at RS Medical Accountancy estimated losing 330 patients would cut an average GMS practice's funding by just under £30,000.

DH officials said list variation was highest in London. GPs in the capital expressed strong concerns over the plans, which follow a series of controversial exercises this year, most notoriously NHS Brent's removal of 38,000 patients in a week.

Dr Tony Grewal, medical director of Londonwide LMCs and a GP in Hillingdon, north-west London, said: ‘Vulnerable patients, migrants and multiple-occupancy addresses are among those adversely affected. Some practices are very seriously hit.'

Dr Richard Vautrey, deputy chair of the GPC, said: ‘Practices will be very concerned about this and so should patients. In recent months we've heard numerous examples of patients who are angry they've been wrongly removed from their practice. It is right to ensure lists are accurate, but it must be done with care and sensitivity.'

 

How we lost 1,500 patients

Dr Martin Lindsay, chair of Haringey LMC, saw 1,500 of his practice's 11,500 patients removed in a list-cleansing drive last July.

‘We had three times the number of patients removed that should have been removed – that kind of thing harms patients and practices.'

‘It does GPs absolutely no favours to have overinflated lists. If anything, payment by results means you are better off these days having a slightly smaller list and hitting targets. The problem comes when they keep trying to clean lists again and again. It takes up all of our staff's time and takes away from clinical work.'

 

RCGP chair Dr Clare Gerada will answer your questions live on PulseToday tomorrow. Logon between 2pm and 3pm to quiz Dr Gerada - or click here submit your queries.

READERS' COMMENTS

Anonymous, PCT,
23 Nov 2011
Sounds a perfectly reasonable request to me. I dont see why the NHS should be funding patients that dont exist. Yes great care should be taken to ensure it is done with accuracy so practices are not penalised by having real patients removed.
Average (3Votes)
Top
Andrew Craig, Other healthcare professional,
23 Nov 2011
We have an annual "turnover" of about 30% of our population in this part of Inner London, so it is only right that lists are kept as clean as possible. Chasing non-existent patients is nonsensical in terms of screening and prevention targets and paying for phantoms is simply throwing away public resources. The letters that are used could be more user friendly judging by some I have seen, but the objective can't be argued with.
Average (3Votes)
Top
Mark Preston, GP Partner,
23 Nov 2011
It seems reasonable in concept but to prevent patients who are vunerable from being removed they should be done via the FP69 removals. We have just processed 25 of these 'Mail returned by GPO' and 4 are still with us and 2 are quite ill. Not everyone who ignors or returns mail is a ghost. The majority of our removals have a note like 'going to Thailand' or 'emigrating next year' and so are probably abroad.
Average (2Votes)
Top
Nigel Dickson, GP Partner,
23 Nov 2011
I personally don't have any problem with cleaning up of GP's lists if its done across the whole of the country - will help us all hit targets - but what is the point of the exercise?

To reduce current budgets of course - 1st and foremost to further cut GPs pay but so same work for less pay - nothing new there then - but also to cut cost of funding to CCG's - this is a mugs game. Same population to care for but hey boys and girls we are going to give you less money to look after them because we've got rid of all the asians/polish/australians who've gone home. Doohh but they didn't exist so didn't cost anything. Its the existing real patients that are costing so much. Ahh but you don't need so much money to look after fewer patients. The ConDems must think we are all mugs - if the cut CCG budgets because they've got rid of all the ghosts we would be mugs to play their stupid game of we gave the GPs the power and some of the money and look what a hash they've made of it - even the right wing entreprenuial ones who we thought were our friends - GPs they are all useless - no option now but get our chums in the private sector to sort it out - state run systems always been rubbish. You think this is a joke?
Average (2Votes)
Top
Monica Stevens, GP Partner,
23 Nov 2011
Perhaps we could refuse to reinstate anyone who is removed from our lists. If we all held firm it could be a big headache for the government. We could give them notice that we intend to do this from a certain date.

We would need some mechanism to stop them being allocated .

We all know that most of these patients do exist but for some reason have not responded. We also know that we rely on these non attenders to subsidise the frequent attenders.

The BMA could grow some balls and campaign for the capitation fee to only give so many attendances and then we would seek a fee per consultation above a certain number.
Average (2Votes)
Top
Anonymous, Practice Manager,
24 Nov 2011
I do not think GPs should be paid for non existent patients but great care needs to be taken in de registering patients . The local PCT had an excercise to list cleanse and the amount of aggravation and aggression we got from patients who were deregistered 'wrongly' was unfair to everyone involved staff and patients alike. Patients were unnecessarily delayed and staff had a lot of agression, do it by all means just do it right.
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, GP Partner,
26 Nov 2011
A good many years ago, we had a problem.
A patient (well organised) was removed from the list, and the then PCO claimed it had had a recorded delivery letter returned.(but could not produce any evidence)
They then refused to register the patient at the same address.
The patient was not pleased - and, as this was before we were computerised and the patient was under treatment, - there was a risk to the safety of the patient's medical care.
If a patient loses registration because of list cleansing, and suffers harm as a result, who is liable?
Average (0Votes)
Top

ADD YOUR COMMENTS

Please note You must be a registered user of PulseToday and logged in to add comments. Opinions expressed below are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of PulseToday. Comments are considered in the public domain and may be used in future Pulse coverage. We accept no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for the accuracy or the content of member comments.

Comment*

You must be logged in to add a comment.Clickhere to login.

POLL

Are GPs ordering too many lab tests?Read the full story here

SIGN UP FOR EMAIL NEWSLETTERS

Keep up-to-date with the latest changes to the NHS, CPD and clinical guidelines. Sign up below or find out more.