This tinkering with the contract is impudence
I cannot understand the logic of the square-rooted formula of prevalence. Despite the reasoning by the GPC, and trying to persuade myself that this formula is justified, one cannot help seeing the utter unfairness of it all.
Is the GPC saying that although a practice may have very little prevalence of a certain disease it still gets paid for not doing that work? Is it saying the practice with the high workload and achieving a high quality of care should be deprived of being paid for the work it does and the monies being shunted to places that do not have to carry out this work? I seem to recall that the whole idea about the quality and outcomes scheme within the contract was that one gets rewarded for the work one does.
I also recall that no such formula existed when we were asked to vote for this contract. It seems the GPC and the Government are adjusting the contract with no consultation on a wider level and, dare I say, with impudence. On a daily basis we come across such decisions.
General practice did not vote for a contract but for a Pandora's Box. What a shame.
Dr V Valmiki