This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

CAMHS won't see you now

Opposing the GP contract imposition was a gamble. Was it worth it?

  • Print
  • 7
  • Save

So now, at last, we know what the GMS contract will look like from 1 April, and in terms of practice finance, the real work is just beginning. GPs across the country will be taking a long hard look at their balance sheet for the coming year, with accountants forecasting a cut in partner drawings of up to 4%.

The mood of the profession seems to be hovering somewhere between grim resignation and fatalistic despondency at the moment, with the whole contract imposition process having acquired an air of apparent inevitability. But as the dust settles, it’s worth a quick glance back at what might have been.

Cast your mind back to October, when ministers first laid their contract changes on the table and offered them alongside a 1.5% funding uplift. GPC negotiators rejected the deal, and said they preferred to wait on the recommendation of the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration (DDRB).

It was a move which was, as expected, popular with the profession. But as Pulse pointed out at the time, it was also a gamble, given that ministers had not promised to abide by the DDRB’s recommendations (and had no track record of doing so), and given that they had warned they would take the 1.5% offer off the table.

How did that gamble pan out? Well, the DDRB did indeed recommend a greater funding uplift – 2.29% - but ministers cheerfully ignored this and without any real explanation downgraded their original offer of a funding uplift, to just 1.32%.

That’s worth repeating: the GPC’s decision to reject the Government’s offer cost every GP practice in England in cash terms – a small but significant 0.18% uplift, to be precise.

So what concessions were the GPC able to win?

At first glance, the amendments to the original deal which were unveiled yesterday appear limited, to say the least. Two NICE-recommended indicators for referral to cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation services deferred. Some phasing in of the new DESs. A welcome clarification that locum superannuation reimbursement will at least be paid through global sum equivalent.

Certainly the GPC weren’t celebrating victory. In fact, GPC chair Dr Laurence Buckman was unequivocal: ministers had ‘completely failed to take on board the concerns of thousands of GPs’, he said.  

So, with the benefit of hindsight, should the GPC have swallowed its pride and taken the deal back at the end of October? Well, no – they would have been castigated for capitulating, and rightly so. It was bad enough for ministers to unilaterally dictate changes to a negotiated contract. If the GPC had signed up to the deal, that would have added insult to injury – and set a disastrous precedent for future contract negotiations, which will from next year be handled by the NHS Commissioning Board.

But it’s worth being clear, too, that the handful of amendments the Government made yesterday were at the price of a further cut to the already insufficient funding uplift first put on the table.

At the end of a decidedly one-sided contract fight, one final kick.

Steve Nowottny is the editor of Pulse. You can follow him on Twitter @stevenowottny.

Readers' comments (7)

  • I have a feeling that the profession is going to kick, but unfortunately by means of a recruitment crisis.....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    I still feel that it was not entirely fair for you guys to label Buckman as ' the leader of a defeated profession' on the front cover of a PULSE magazine . It is exactly the point that we cannot be castigated a capitulating , although I do think GPC could have done more for our colleagues. We are fighting a war against terror and bully after all.........

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This was inevitable. We have a monopoly employer who can do what he wants. Buckman is a general without an army - when was the last time the profession actually stood together?
    There was no contest.
    Having been in practice for 25 yrs I have no doubt that this is yet another nail in the coffin for patient centred primary care. The cornerstone of general practice is being eroded . Patients will suffer, and not even realise.
    On the positive side if we are lucky there will be another recruitment crisis, the DH will then make it more attractive again - and so the circle continues.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dr Ho - many thanks for your comment. It's certainly a fair point, although the tagline on the cover you mention was actually 'Leader of a defeated profession?' - the question mark was crucial!

    It is a matter of debate among GPs at the moment I think - but even those who claim the profession does seem defeated would not necessarily blame its leaders. As the next comment says, the Government is a monopoly employer which can effectively do what it wants - and currently seems to be doing so...

    Steve Nowottny
    Editor, Pulse

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What a phoney "consultation"! Very annoying too that the RCN and NHSCB were quoted as supporting various aspects of the imposed contract. Perhaps Pulse would like to ask them why they have supported the NHS Employers on this issue and if they consulted with practice nurses?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This was the inevitable consequence of the BMA's shameful capitulation over the changes to the NHS pension. We were marched up the hill of industrial action and then abandoned by the BMA at the top. Our leaders effectively said to the Government "we've done our worst, now you can do what you like to us" not surprisingly they have and will continue to do so!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Only defeated in the sense that we don't walk away from this dictatorial, unfair and bullying DOH. We even let 100 practices go to the wall over MPIG. Why do we stay in the NHS ? The BMA, I think, should ballot the possibility of resignation. If the profession stays in the NHS, then we have to take the horrific consequences.We should leave.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

  • Print
  • 7
  • Save