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

GP commissioners consider diverting funding to APMS contracts under 'frightening' proposals

Exclusive A CCG is considering using directed enhanced service funding for a new model of primary care that would see practices switching to APMS contracts in proposals described as ‘frightening in the extreme’ by local leaders.

In its plans to co-commission primary care, NHS Basildon and Brentwood CCG wants to pilot a ‘Prime Provider’ model of primary care by 2015/16, which would involve practices working as part of an umbrella organisation involving mental health, acute care and social care professionals.  

The CCG would fund this through combining budgets currently used for DESs, CCG funding and money from the local authority in a bid to try to improve care for people with long-term conditions or frail older people.

The CCG says the contracts would be ‘entirely voluntary’, and would be commissioned under an ‘outcomes-based’ APMS contract. It also told Pulse that any plans would be subject to ‘prior approval’ from member practices.

But local leaders have warned that GPs may come under pressure to buy into the scheme and the CCG could tender for private organisations if they do not do so.

This comes after Pulse reported last week that NHS West Hampshire CCG has already proposed to take control of all QOF and directed enhanced service funding as part of their plans for co-commissioning primary care following a call for submissions from NHS England.

But under the NHS Basildon and Brentwood CCG proposals, the CCG has set out a vision of changing the model of primary care.

Papers seen by Pulse say ‘the new model would combine ‘elements of core and enhanced primary medical services for a defined population, under the umbrella of a single prime provider organisation, commissioned under an APMS contract.’

They say: ‘There is the potential for the CCG to explore the development of new contractual arrangements involving the local GP practices, on a voluntary basis.’

‘Both the development of a federated approach to collaboration between groups of practices, and the focus upon developing “named accountable professional teams” (ie designated professionals with expert knowledge of community health – physical and mental – and social care provision working in close collaboration with a “named GP” to constitute a practice-level multidisciplinary team) provide a basis for exploring the potential for developing a new service delivery model, combining elements of core and enhanced primary medical services with the delivery of community health and social care services for a defined population, under the umbrella of a single “Prime Provider” organisation, commissioned under the APMS contract.’

The CCG also says it wants to ‘exert greater influence’ over monitoring and performance management of GP practices.

Dr Brian Balmer, chair of Essex LMC, warned that the CCG could look to a private provider if GPs do reject the plans.

He said: ‘These plans are frightening and extreme. The CCG wants to take more control of what GPs do. It’s like being in a yacht club that tells you where to go and what colour to paint your boat. If everybody says no then the CCG will just go ahead and do it with a private health care provider. They say that they want to pilot a short term two-year contract, and this will lead to a salaried service.’

He also believes that the CCG plans will cause rifts between GPs in the region. ‘I know some GPs who want to take over other GPs’ contracts and bully other GPs,’ he added.

GPC chair Dr Chaand Nagpaul said that the GPC was not supportive of plans for CCGs to co-commission primary care.

He said: ‘It is vital that CCGs make sure their members are fully supportive of these radical co-commissioning plans before they submit them, otherwise the GPs will be disenfranchised.  There is a deadline of June 20 for submitting these plans and CCGs are supposed to be consulting members on any plans like these, as part of NHS England guidelines.’

Dr Nagpaul said there were ‘irreconcilable differences’ and a conflict of interest when CCGs try to commission GP contracts.

A statement from NHS Basildon and Brentwood CCG said: ‘At a meeting of our Clinical Executive Group held yesterday (12th June), it was decided that the CCG would express an interest in exploring further the opportunities that co-commissioning might offer, but any subsequent proposal from the CCG specifying the areas of co-commissioning we would be interested in, would be subject to prior approval by and engagement with our member GP practices.’

‘The CCG will be setting up a group with clinical representatives from its four locality areas to explore in greater detail, whether entering into a co-commissioning arrangement would be beneficial to us in achieving our strategic objective of supporting excellent primary care.’   

Readers' comments (8)

  • Unintelligible bull

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • utter idiocy

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • CCGs led by GPs is an illusion.

    The best PCT managers who could get jobs elsewhere did, leaving all the useless and work shy behind - who were then co-opted into the new CCGs and NHS England.

    The GPs are there for window dressing while the managers pull most of the strings and let the rest of the practices think they are being represented.

    Worst case there are some radical GPs who are colluding with the privatisation of Primary Care and a move to salaried service.

    This is a trojan horse and unless we all wake up soon, Primary care as we know it will be dead, and run by corporations and GPs will work as their lackeys.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • These are exciting times but I'd like to suggest a few words of caution. Thinking of the greedy, callous remarks I've heard from some people representing new GP organisations looking to carve out their share of the fragmenting NHS and think back about how callously my local NHS hospital has often treated its staff, I've often start to wonder whether a Virgin takeover might be a good thing after all...

    My point is this: in creating new provider organisations and federations, GPs must guard against sinking to a greater level of depravity than those they seek to exclude from the market. The current restructuring of services presents an opportunity for newly forming organisations to engender a positive culture that moves beyond the bullying and intimidation so prevalent in the NHS of the past (e.g. North Staffs). We might like to listen to Nietzsche "beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you."

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • well unfortunately the BBBW CCG is controlled by a manager and not clinicians

    the clinicians are used as rubber stamp to the decisions made by Chief Officer

    UNFORTUNATELY-GOOD LUCK TO MY COLLEAGUES

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • ,so you would rather put your trust in NHS England?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There is serious lack of transparency with some Commissioning 'Champions' working for APMS Providers ad Commercial Directors or in other positions. APMS Providers are paid up to £250 per patient (FOI form 2010 for one Provider in Medway). Allowing Commissioners to siphon off more funds to APMS will open another loophole to strangle general practice. So who runs this CCG that is considering this absolutely unacceptable and immoral proposition?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If we accept the newspeak of CCGs then they are membership organisations. The local GPs have the right to block any stupidity from the executive

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say