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

Why the prevalence formula is so unfair

I wonder if I might help my colleagues to understand the unfairness of the prevalence formula with the following worked examples.

Prevalence payment calculation

5,891 = average practice size

NP = national prevalence

P = practice prevalence

PF = prevalence factor = sq root of P

NP

Consider a quiet university four-partner practice

with 6,000 patients:

100 diabetics, achieve 80 points

NP 3 per cent P 1.67 per cent

So, PF = 0.75

0.75 x 80 x 75 x 6,000 = £4,583

5,891

Now consider a busy urban four-partner practice

of 8,000 patients:

300 diabetics, achieve 80 points

NP 3 per cent P 3.75 per cent

So, PF = 1.12

1.12 x 80 x 75 x 8,000 = £9,125

5,891

This pays less than twice as much for three times as much work! I can't see how this is either equitable or acceptable. We are not dealing with insurance-based reactive medicine here, it is actual clinical work as recorded by observable events.

If we use just the ratio P instead of square rooting it:

NP

0.557 x xxxx = £3,403

1.25 x xxxx = £10,185

Still not quite three times as much pay but it reflects the workload better and would be more acceptable.

Dr John Fitton

Kettering

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