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

Spurned pay deal cut 120 QOF points

The Government wanted to slice 120 points from the quality framework as part of the deal the GPC rejected in the run-up to the GP pay freeze.

Pulse has learned the deal

offered involved the loss of 120 points, or significantly higher thresholds across the framework, plus 2.5 per cent efficiency savings in exchange for a 1 per cent pay rise.

NHS Employers did not deny this but refused to give further details. A spokesperson argued every practice would have had an increase in income in return for 'efficiencies across the contract in line with expectations of other parts of the NHS'.

'We were discussing a range of options which would have resulted in an uplift to the contract and an increase in income for every practice.'

The news emerged as the GPC failed to agree any national action over the pay freeze.

Dr Barbara Hakin, lead negotiator, said NHS Employers had always contended that the rejected offer was 'better for patients, fair to the profession and good value for taxpayers'.

She said: 'It would have represented significant investment in GMS in return for improvements in care and efficiencies and would have resulted in an uplift for all GMS practices.'

But Dr Hamish Meldrum, GPC chair, argued any potential inflationary rise was so 'bound up with caveats and efficiency savings' as to be unacceptable.

Dr Meldrum said he refuted 'more or less every point' Dr Hakin had made.

'We didn't believe what was being offered was a fair package that was good for all the people she mentions and would have given GPs a fair reward for the work they do,' he said.

hcrump@cmpmedica.com

• GPs protest at pay freeze, page 3

Rate this article 

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Have your say