This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

New guaranteed funding deal is riddled with flaws

Predictably, those shameless fools purporting to be our negotiators have suggested the quick-fix solution of guaranteeing current levels of GMS funding in a last-ditch attempt to sway any GPs still on the fence. But there are a number of problems with this.

First, practices can opt for guaranteed current levels of funding but will only receive inflationary increases in addition to quality payments and preparatory monies, or they can adopt the Carr-Hill formula. If practices accept guaranteed funding levels, inflationary rises can surely not keep up with rising costs as more staff time would need to be paid for as well as equipment and other expenses. The preparatory monies are, quite frankly, peanuts and will not cover much of the extra costs.

Second, whatever method is chosen, the quality payments are still weighted according to the Carr-Hill formula as per the GPC's own spreadsheet. As 70 per cent of GPs seem to have lost out with this formula then 70 per cent of GPs will be meeting targets for which they have their quality payments reduced according to their notional list. This will hardly inspire GPs to bother with quality targets.

Third, by either method, GPs will only receive 33 per cent of all quality payments upfront. This is not really going to help practices to finance and recruit to carry out quality work. Presumably GPs and staff are meant to work harder for nothing until the end of each year ­ hardly a good way to run a business.

This is such a sham that I cannot see how anybody would vote for it ­ and how have the GPC negotiators the audacity not to tender their resignations?

Dr Minesh Patel

East Grinstead

West Sussex

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