This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pul jul aug2020 cover 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

Independents' Day

Patient launches legal bid to reverse practice's £277k budget cut

Exclusive NHS England is facing a potential judicial review in the wake of PMS review cuts to a local practice that will mean a 42% reduction in its annual budget, leading to redundancies and reduced access.

Pulse has learned that other practices are also preparing to undertake legal action as they prepare to lose hundreds of thousands in annual funding, with the possibility of a class action. 

Law firms have said the size of the impact on local GP services raises questions over NHS England’s consultation with patients about the changes.

NHS England announced a review of the ‘premium’ funding received by PMS practices that were not linked to specific services in 2013, in a bid to save £260m, which it said was set to be ‘redeployed’ across all GP practices in the area.

Pulse reported that accountants believed some practices would lose as much as £400k from the reviews, which have been taking place since April 2014

Many practices were given reprieves through deals that would see their funding gradually reduced over a number of years.

However, some practices are now facing up to cuts that will kick in from April 2016.

One practice, Slaithwaite Surgery, near Huddersfield, West Yorkshire has warned their nearly 5,000 patients that there will likely be reduced access, after it has spent two years fighting proposed cuts of £277,000. 

In response one of their patients has ‘filed papers’ on NHS England, with the surgery saying they have ‘been advised that NHS England is acting unlawfully’ having failed to meet the patient consultation requirements in the NHS Act 2006.

The practice is also launching a website and campaign, Family Doctor SOS, which will give information for affected surgeries and patients.

Dr Paul Wilding, one of the partners at Slaithwaite Surgery said ’the budget cut is so extreme for us’, adding that it comes to around £277,000 - 42% of its budget - and they expect to have to cut their practice staff while caring for the same 4,838 patient list.

He added: ‘One of our patients has taken action with this judicial review – which we’re delighted with. That’s the collateral benefit of sounding things out with patients, asking if they’re annoyed by this and are they prepared to fight? Well the answer is people want to get tooled up, they’re furious about it, and one of them [who is asking to stay anonymous] has gone and filed papers on Simon Stevens.’

He also said there had been indications this was happening elsewhere.

Dr Wilding said: ’At least two other practices/patients nationally now taking legal action against NHSE/government for failure to consult regarding enforced service change/failure to consult. End result may be a class action.’

NHS England declined to comment on the legal action, but said: The purpose of local PMS reviews is to ensure that PMS funding is aligned to services for patients and that where it isn’t, it is reinvested into GP services in that CCG area.

‘PMS reviews will not reduce the overall level of GP funding in each area.’

However, Dr Wilding said this would likely be in the form of incentives schemes.

He added: ’We cannot keep GPs and nurses on in the assumption that we might meet incentive scheme requirements (despite less staff). Regardless, if we lose £280,000 and then try to win back £25,000-£30,000, we are still holed below the water line.’

Meanwhile, in Bristol, Concorde Medical Centre has also learned they will lose £240,000 annually, after the NHS England review said they were not providing the additional services identified in their PMS contract.

Practice partner and former Avon LMC chair Dr Simon Bradley said this will lead to a big reduction in appointments offered.

He said: ‘[The premium loss is] getting on for £240,000 over five years. That funds 18,000 appointments in my practice a year, that’s the whole of our nursing team, or it’s two GPs. It will mean our practice will have to reduce between 14,000 and 18,000 appointments a year.’

But a spokesperson for NHS England South West said that the redistributed funding would mitigate this with more than half the amount being reinvested and all practices would benefit.

They said: ‘The figures quoted [by Concorde Medical Centre] takes no account of the reinvestment of all PMS premium funding by the CCG back into local practices which will reduce the impact to less than half the amount quoted.’

‘Practices which through higher funding have been able to deliver extra services to their patients may have to change what they offer.’

Readers' comments (11)

  • Honestly, some people are getting so worked up about being paid! It should be an honour, nay a privilige to treat patients! Indeed it is so much so that doctors should pay for the privilige themselves, if they have any sense of pride or vocation....
    They should also fund the poor patients work up in hospital etc...

    Perhaps this is what Jeremy has been working on now he has disappeared from public view? He is DETERMINED to break up the NHS and GP practices with all his main and might.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I'm in discussions to sue NHSE for discrimination and fraud as they have failed to honour the calculations on the Exeter statements - Deprivation/Rurality payments. The level of underpayment is around 100k per year for the last 2 years.
    HSCIC and a neighbouring PCA have confirmed this after looking at my statements as other Practices are being paid for Fringe details.
    Funny, they don't even respond to your request for feedback on the issue. Want to see some real buffoons, don't go to London zoo, there's enough of them in NHSE.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • PMS PRACTICES all over country will be affected . it need to be co-ordinated opposition to these cuts nationwide. GMS practices should join them for loss of MPIG . that was illegal as well. all should join in for loosing seniority allowences and imposition of 7/7 contract.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well, as a manager of a GMS practice I am always wondering why on Earth our list size is growing as we sit next to two PMS practices (£60 per patient premium) as they get almost double the cash as us and are open 8-8 + Sat morning.

    Then again, we are ahead on the waiting times/same day/emergency appointments.

    The main difference is in what cars the respective partners drive.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There was always apartheid in the NHS. APMS were those with connections who took on a PCT Manager and former Medical Directors on their payrolls and got lucrative £250 p/pt contracts plus KPI payments to the tune of 100k per year. Some of these former Directors were also at the same time ROs. Then you had PMS Practices who had the clout and contacts locally in areas and were able to squeeze out £150 per patient.
    Finally, GMS GPs who were further sub-divided into two categories - those with and those without MPIGs. Not going into details about the rights and wrongs and the arguments behind these divisions whether justified or not, this has been a major discriminatory factor and has resulted in gross underfunding of some Practices. Must be remembered that while APMS were paid additional money for KPIs; GMS contract holders had to do this work as part of their contract.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • When are the leaders of our profession going to do something? it is not enough to get gongs, you have to look after your GPs, GPC. otherwise resign.
    Please ballot for resignation. Junior doctors got 98%, we might get 75%, but that is enough.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • entire GPC should be replaced they are useless. Primary Care is so fragmented nobody even knows what money they are getting and why.

    No wonder life as a locum is so nice compared to Partnership.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The problem is also with the GPs who agree to do work that has been imposed.

    If no-one paid for CQC - and no one welcomed their teams it would have died a death.

    If no-one did enhanced opening etc then we would be doing basic contracted hours 8 to 6.30pm Monday to Friday.

    When some break the mould and cave and do it, then the infection spreads.

    Too many GPs act like Turkeys voting for Xmas.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree .Some of us have been greedy and had huge payments,first as fundholders then PMS first wave now as CCG providers and paid as leads ....never mind conflicts etc
    The fools areas in staff who award these contracts.
    Why would anyone be paid £250 k more than gms
    We are small and have £75 k deducted, but we will cut services as this is a third of our income
    Anyone know what GMS pays for a list of 5000
    That might work but accountants can't be sure

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This joke has gone so far, it's not funny anymore...or "Sustainable".

    We just switched to a Private firm , but always make sure you get your lawyers involved instead of a Corporate-style hostile takeover!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say