This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

CAMHS won't see you now

Private GP providers will have to publish pay

GMS contract requirements to make GPs publish their pay will also be placed upon any primary care providers commissioned by NHS England or CCGs, including private APMS practices, NHS England has said.

At the NHS England board meeting on Thursday, national director of commissioning strategy Ian Dodge laid out measures for the co-commissioning of primary care and said it was important for CCGs to ensure ‘consistency across different contractual reforms’, specifically citing the publishing of pay.

His comments were made as part of the discussion on what co-commissioning involves, which also revealed that NHS England would be publishing statutory guidance on CCGs avoiding potential conflicts of interest.

As part of the 2015/16 GMS contract, practices will have to publish their average GP pay, which NHS England plans to expand to individual GPs declaring their pay.

But Mr Dodge confirmed at the meeting that this will also apply to PMS and APMS providers.

He said: ‘It’s important to ensure consistency across the different contractual forms, on a number of areas where it would be self-evidently odd to allow variation.

‘So for example, we are introducing, in GMS, a new set of requirements around transparency of GP earnings, and CCGs collectively and the profession will absolutely want to make sure that that applies across all forms of contracting.

‘So we will have a mechanism to be able to insist on national rules that apply across all forms of primary care commissioning.’

An NHS England spokesperson confirmed to Pulse that this meant APMS providers would be required to publish their pay.

Mr Dodge also explained there would be - for the first time - statutory guidance on managing conflicts of interest for CCGs who take on primary care co-commissioning roles, and auditors will have to assure NHS England that these are being met.

He said: ‘When we publish the guidance document to CCGs it will provide more information, we hope, early next week. We will set out those arrangements and invite formal comments back before issuing, for the first time in this area, statutory guidance on the handling of conflicts of interest.’

The board approved all the measures put forward in the proposal, which Pulse has previously reported will pave the way for CCGs to develop local quality assurance schemes which GPs can adopt instead of the national QOF.

Also at the meeting, national director of commissioning operations, Dame Barbara Hakin warned that plans to for implementing integrated health and care services in five Health and Wellbeing Board regions will be delayed until 2015.

Dame Hakin said Essex, Hillingdon, Lancashire, Northamptonshire and Oxfordshire were the only areas not to receive approval for their plans, and would have to undergo a redesign before they could be adopted by NHS England.

Readers' comments (18)

  • Why are GPs being singled out and picked on in this way? What about all the other services funded by the tax payer?! What is it about GPs that exites these angry politicians so much?! Why GPs???

    It's vicimization pure and simple. What the hell is our pethetic union doing about this?...spineless useless and asleep as our profession is completly taken appart and stripped of self respect, privacy and dignity.

    My god this issue along with all the countless others detailed daily in the publication make me angry.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree. I am not sure why we are being singled out more so than any other profession in living memory. I can only guess the few that benefit from all this mess will control the chess board of minions.
    whats next burning at the stake?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think that the reason for singling us out is that 'the powers' want an end to small GP Practices that can not be 'controlled '. All other Doctors in the NHS are employed by large organisations (foundation trusts) that can be sold off or easily influenced / controlled by large financial institutions. The expectation is that GP Practices will either form large practices of at least 30,000 patients, which can again be sold off or influenced as per foundation trusts.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am an Independent Contractor, I am not employed by the NHS or by the Government. Do all organisations that contract with the government have to publish their earnings? Every last person in Serco for example? If not why not? And if not why isn't the BMA just saying "NO"? It really is that easy. Just say "NO" on our behalf please.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • My boiler broke down I called someone to fix it . he spent about 1 hour then I was handed £220 bill . Nice and sweet no GMC no politicians no NHE . We are in the wrong job and its rather sad that it came to this point.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There should and could easily be a legal challenge on this.....this is 2014......persecuting individual professions and exempting many others (taxpayer funded) is simply irrational. It is legally a case of "all or none"-While I do not care about publishing my earnings, it is simply a matter of principle.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As a group, we need to grow a spine and simply say NO!

    I cannot see how publishing someone's personal finances is even legal let alone ethical. Quite frankly this initiative is beyond the pale and the GPC have a very serious case to answer here for agreeing to it. There is more than enough transparency because the terms of GMS contracts are already in the public domain. Unfiltered personal financial information is open to misinterpretation and probably increases the risk of GPs being defrauded. How on earth do the BMA feel it is acceptable for the government to harass doctors in this way when no-one else on the public payroll is abused so vehemently?

    This is wrong and it should be stopped now.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am for transparency and already sharing my income on the forum. However, it is a Dodgy concept because allows solicitors, politicians and NHS bosses to remain behind curtains.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • We need to show strength. A simple refusal to do OOH for 2 weeks over Christmas and all this nonsense will stop .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with the last comment:
    stop booking OOH shifts for 2weeks: earn our respect back.

    publishing the pay does not help. most of earn >100K but we work FTE X1.5 to keep our partnership earnings to were it is. never got home before 7pm despite last pt being at 6pm.
    on average work 50-55hrs/wk rather than 37.5hrs/wk.
    we will be forced to become locums which will end up costing more.

    refuse OOH for 2wks in December. enjoy your well deserved break.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say