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

Practices who ditch new 'voluntary' GP contract could lose all their patients

GP practices which decide to leave the new 'voluntary' contract could be forced to give up their patients, according to guidance published today by NHS England.

NHS England had previously promised that GP practices fully entering into a Multispecialty Community Provider (MCP) contract would have a right to return to their GMS or PMS contract.

But the updated draft guidance said this option would only be made available to practice in two-year intervals, and if the practices were more than two years into the contract their patients would not follow the practices unless the patients themselves specifically requested to.

The document said: 'If the GP reactivated in the first two years of the [c]ontract the default would be that patients previously on their registered list follow the GP to be re-registered with the practice. If they reactivate after these first two years the patients will remain with the MCP unless they request to follow the GP.'

If a GP practice does decide to leave an MCP contract, commissioners will write to all of their patients to advise them of their right to chose to stay with the MCP or to follow their GP, NHS England added.

The document said: ‘This reflects the need to balance stability and choice to patients, and reflects the ongoing changes to a practice and MCP’s resident population over time.’

Furthermore, the new guidance states that a GMS or PMS contract can only be reactivated once, meaning all the partners originally under the contract will have to agree that it should be reactivated.

The document said: ‘For example, if half a partnership wished to reactivate and half preferred to stay in the MCP, the partners together would have to agree on their preferred course of action.’

NHS England said that GPs 'have expressed concern that upon reactivation they could find themselves in competition with the MCP'. And it seemed to confirm this was the case, adding that 'a GP considering a return to GMS/PMS will need to articulate how the care the patient will receive from the new practice will compare to the care provided by the MCP'.

NHS England said that, in response 'a GP may wish to reactivate GMS/PMS and sign an integration agreement to become partially-integrated with the MCP'.

'GPs will of course want to carefully consider the options available to them and balance their personal interests with those of their patients,' the document added.

NHS England further admitted that GPs going back to their original contract 'will become less practical as time passes' but said it hoped that 'by offering regular opportunities throughout the contract, practices and MCPs are able to make informed decisions about the terms under which they are operating'.

NHS England guidance last year said GP practices could hold virtual, partial and fully integrated MCP contracts - only the latter which would see their contracts replaced.

The BMA's GP Committee has advised practices to not 'make any hasty decisions' with regards to MCPs, and to not to feel pressured to give up their GP contracts.

Commenting on the latest guidance, GPC contracts and regulations lead Dr Robert Morley said: 'The right to return after “suspension” of the GMS/PMS contract is entirely illusory as the default position is that patients stay registered with the MCP/ACO, not the practice.

'In effect suspending the contract means giving up the practice and is wholly inadvisable.'

Readers' comments (16)

  • the only route of MCP is for the MCP to formally take over a GMS practice. Which may work out for the GPs involved

    GP practices should not be allowing themselves any involvement otherwise

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Given the potential range of holders of an MCP contract assume it could be held by a limited liability company and is not restricted to full partnership liability. This would make the above scenarios much more palatable.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    You wonder deep down NHSE actually prefers PACS/ACO to MCP/ACO. Eventually it is to wipe out all GMS contracts left ..........

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • One way street

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So much effort and expenditure where it is not needed. Perhaps direct efforts at supporting a profession under siegeq

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is an ideologically led project and we know the outcomes.

    Poorer quality of care at greater cost.

    Plenty of funded projects for business analysts and Pharma though!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • MCP DOA IMO

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Peter Swinyard

    Imagine you have given up your GMS contract to join an MCP. It then all comes apart at the seams and you want to get out. You still have 18 years remaining on your surgery lease. You have no patients. You therefore have no practice income - for that matter, no practice. How would you meet the lease payments? Similar for owner occupiers - how would you fund your surgery loan?
    Very dangerous ground indeed. For the brave, I think.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    Interesting
    In terms of political strategy: make it difficult for GPs to stay in MCPs , that gives incentives to all acute trusts to go for PACS. Cunning thoughts of NHSE and Mr Stevens.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @10:18 - For the reckless rather..

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say