This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Three years of transitional pay for me ­ then I'm off

I recently attended a roadshow where, unfortunately, question time was limited ­ I could have used however much was available.

·When the profession had three or four major complaints, why did we get a 100-page document (with another 160 pages to come) and still not have them properly resolved?

·My youngish, healthy-ish practice loses 28 per cent on the notional weighting (a friend's practice in the third most deprived ward in Essex still manages to lose 7 per cent). The double whammy for me is that not only is the global sum derisory but every quality point is also proportionately downrated ­ even for issues that do not depend on patient type or mix, such as the majority of the organisational indicators. Dr Chisholm could not or chose not to answer this point.

·How is one supposed to assess the impact on the practice's financial stability when every figure is either now 'ballpark' or undeclared, such as enhanced services.

They said it would take three to four hours to work through the ready reckoner; it took me 40 minutes only to determine that, on the available information, my practice stands to lose 15 per cent gross income in year one and 7 per cent thereafter. It looks to me like three years of transitional payments then I'm off. So much for recruitment and retention.

The Government must have seen our negotiators coming a mile off. I'm sure they acted with integrity and good intention, but they have fallen into a barely concealed hole signposted 'centrally controlled salaried general practice'.

Dr I Freed



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