This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

GPs on more than £150k a year to be named

GPs who are drawing more than £150k per year in NHS funding will be named from 2020 as part of a drive to ‘increase transparency on NHS earnings’, officials said.

As part of the new contract, a new 'mechanism' will be put in place in future years to determine those GPs earning more than £150,000 a year - although it is unclear how this will work as yet.

GPs have been required to publish average individual net earning on their practice website since 2016/17, following a previous move to increase transparency on earnings.

Speaking to Pulse, BMA GP committee chair Dr Richard Vautrey said: 'We have recognised that there is increasingly a call for transparency to be put in place. [NHS managers] have their pay published in a public way. 

'So we accept GPs who earn more than £150,000 from NHS earnings, for their pay to be published from 2020. 

'Linked to this, NHS England and the Government are going to be exploring similar arrangements for other NHS contractors.'

 

 

 

Readers' comments (10)

  • Also need to have a honest declaration of MP expenses(tax free) and their housing allowances as well for tansparencey of course.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The BMA once again selling it's members down the river.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • GP Partners are not employees. That the BMA and Dr Vautrey support this exercise in envy and public shaming is utterly disgraceful.
    Please cancel your membership, these people are not on our side.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Does this include 'employers' superannuation? If so this is not reflective of 'true' income as this inflates what we appear to be earning.

    I was recently hit by annual allowance limit which includes the employers superannuation when income calculated and resulted in allowance tapering down.

    Agree with Stelvio re useless BMA hence why I now spend my membership fee on something useful.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Not quite sure why a full time doctor working 10 sessions/ 6 hours a week has to publish his profit share of 160k....

    While 2 jobsharing doctors who work 5 sessions/ 30 hours per week, do not have to publish their income of 80k each?

    There is similar unfairness with regards to the payments for sickness/ maternity. When a 2 session doctor is off sick for 5 months, the practice 'could' (after 2 weeks) pay a locum 900 pounds per session and get it fully funded.
    If a 10 session doctor is off sick, their locum would not be fully covered unless they could find one for 180 pounds a session.

    And worse still if that same 10 session doctor, split his time working 2 sessions at 5 different surgeries, when off sick his locums could be hired for 900 pounds per session.

    We should not be agreeing systems which discourage full time working. Especially when doctors are in such short supply.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • WHAT ABOUT LOCUMS ON £1000 PER DAY....BECAUSE OF THEIR HUGE HOURLY INCOME THEY CAN AFFORD TO WORK 1 DAY PER WEEK.

    SURELY IT IS THE HOURLY RATE THAT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE TOTAL...ANY FOOL WORK WORKS 70 HOURS PER WEEK WILL EARN GOOD MONEY

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Please guide me the area where I could relocate as locum to get 1000/day

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • GPwsiGP
    Orkney

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Typical Diversion tactics. Is some now going to look into the top earners in the NHS management and Bureaucracy?
    For a starter, the HR head in my trust earns a staggering 205K for his pitiful performance in recuiting and retaining staff.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The earlier comment on whether employers contributions are included in this name and shame exercise remains an important issue. I'm pretty sure the Prime minister's declared income and the high earners at the BBC earning over £150K does not include her employer's contributions. Many GP partners will get named and shamed for earning well under this figure. There is also no clarity if this issue may be compounded by the fact that employer's contributions will rise shortly to 20.6%.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say