This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

A faulty production line

GP practices to receive top-up funding from CCG as Government slashes MPIG

A number of GP practices are set to receive extra funding from their CCG to make up for the loss of their minimum practice income guarantee (MPIG) payments.

A London-based CCG revealed that it has budgeted half a million pounds to help practices cope with the reduction in MPIG, in a move supported by local GPs.

The BMA called for all CCGs to take similar action, warning that that the loss of MPIG was continuing to 'hit a broad range of practices with challenging circumstances'.

The MPIG was scrapped via the Government's 2013/14 GP contract imposition, in a move it said would make practice funding more 'equitable'.

And although the BMA managed to convince policy makers to allow seven years for the funding to be phased out, they warned it would 'cause significant destabilisation'.

In London, practices which stood to lose more than £3 per patients, and did not have high-earning partners, received a two-year reprieve before MPIG cuts began.

But, acknowledging the impact the funding withdrawal is now having, NHS City and Hackney CCG has decided to spend £500,000 to partly rebate practices the money they would have received.

It said this will come out of its reserve, or 'headroom' budget within its primary care budget, stressing that the decision was taken by a primary care contracts committee where 'no local GPs' are represented.

NHS City and Hackney CCG chair Dr Mark Rickets said the extra funding would 'support the resilience of local GP practices…whose core funding is under stress from measures such as the reduction of MPIG'.

He told Pulse: 'The CCG seeks to equalise core funding across practices but with an offer of additional support for those who provide services to diverse practice populations, notably, non-English speaking patients.'

BMA GP committee chair Dr Richard Vautrey said all CCGs should take the finanicial loss of MPIG into account when distributing practice funding.

He said: 'The BMA objected to the removal of MPIG funding from the outset, making it clear that phasing it out would hit a broad range of practices with challenging circumstances.

'While in many cases the loss of the correction factor has been partially compensated by a rise in global sum due to the reinvestment of this funding, this has not always been the case, and CCGs should take this into account when allocating funding for practices so that they are able to offer safe, high quality care to their patients.'

City and Hackney LMC representative Dr Nick Mann welcomed the 'essential' funding, but argued it should come from NHS England.

He said: 'It's helpful, probably essential, to keep practices afloat. But this money needs to come from the centre...

'CCGs won't be able to sustain this financial backfill for long.'

Dr Mann's own practices is losing £198,000 a year from the MPIG withdrawal, which he said was around 20% of its total income.

He said: 'Although NHS England told us that MPIG money would be fed back into the global sum, it's been redistributed nationally in a way that has benefited wealthier practices and been diverted away from deprived areas.'

Previously, neighbouring NHS Tower Hamlets CCG stepped in to top up funding for local practices in 2015, after they warned MPIG cuts could threaten their closure.



Readers' comments (5)

  • Completely right. Adding it to GMS just means those who currently lose out via Carr-Hill lose out some more.

    GPC were poor here - they should address this.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree
    Practices in deprived areas are not sustainable due to unfair underfunding whilst practices middle class areas benefit from lower demand better funding etc etc
    Doctors in deprived areas need much more resources but the relevant bodies are often filled by GPs from more affluent areas who will fight to the death to avoid fairer funding

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    ‘The main injustice is never really about inadequate resources but instead , their very poor distribution.’

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Some practices get 200, others 100 pound per patient. Trusts that take over failing practices get 25% more, a sum that would have kept the fallen practice viable.
    GP land is so riven with injustice, it should be dismantled. Such unfairness is shameful.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It’s not as simple as deprivation.....we’re considered to be in a wealthy borough in London- but lose out on Carr hill and in deprivation and we don’t get ANY funding for 3,000 of our patients....
    However our patients are not “wealthy”- and this certainly doesn’t equate to need......our Katie ta have a very high consult rate- serious morbidity ( we might not H.A. e huge numbers of diabetes/ copd- but we have all sorts of neurological problems, cardiovascular, mental healthy, gynae and paediatric) and 3 x national average for consultation rate and our core payment per patient is very low....( far less than 100)
    i question these figures- some of you quoted- does anyone get 200 per patient?! Our salaried docs earn more than partners but partners are doing 14 hour solid days minimum - often 16! We get brushed off with funding diverted to deprived areas..... this is general practice- all patients have health needs!!!! They may be different but they have needs and funding should be fair for ALL! It’s NOT public health which can be targeted!
    Before you spout off about less deprived practices- do some research- we provide secondary care level mental health, paeds, gynae and A&E work from damn hard working good doctors- we have lost 25% of our budget yet provide the same service - don’t let them Pitt us off against each other- the funding in general has gone!!!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say