This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

Gold, incentives and meh

Partners suffer further 5.5% cut in take-home pay since April

Exclusive GP partners’ take home pay has plummeted by an average of 5.5% in the last seven months, a Pulse survey of more than 400 GP partners has shown.

Overall, 67% reported some kind of decrease, with a quarter reporting drops of between 5% and 10% and one in eight respondents saying their reduction in drawings was between 11% and 15%.

Only 8% of partners said they had been seen an increase in take-home pay, while a mid-point analysis of the figures revealed an average reduction of 5.5%.

Respondents and medical accountants put the changes down to a variety of factors, typically increased superannuation payments for pensions, extra costs for hiring locums, and changes to PMS funding arrangements.

Pulse has reported that there is a shortage of GP partners, and GP leaders have put this down to decreasing pay.

It follows last year’s DDRB pay award, which saw GP practices receiving a 0.28% increase in net funding after the Government accepted advice from the pay review body that falling staff costs should be taken into account when giving GPs a 1% rise in income.

This comes on top of an estimated 7.9% decrease in pay last year.

Devon GP and GPC member Dr Mark Sanford-Wood said: ‘The survey shows that people are working considerably harder for less money. Newly qualified GPs are increasingly choosing to work as locums or out of hours, because they can earn more money. It is difficult for practices to attract new partners. In terms of trying to make further savings there is no fat on the bone.

One respondent, Dr James Bissett, a GP in Comber, County Down, said increases in superannuation payments were the main reason for his fall in drawings of 11-15%, while another respondent said his reduction was around 40% and he was doing 14-hour days.

A further respondent put his 20% fall down to ‘PMS cuts and Carr-Hill cuts’.

Bob Senior, chair of the Association of Independent Specialist Medical Accountants, said: ‘I’m surprised that the reduction is as much as 5.5%. I would have estimated about 3%. Increased superannuation charges are one reason, and the recruitment problems are another.

‘Partners are retiring and practices are struggling to replace them. Practices have had to pick up higher locum costs to cover these shifts. There is very little slack in the system for GPs to make savings. They have already done lots of little things like changing electrical suppliers and phone suppliers, and reducing stationery costs. There isn’t much left they can do.’

Glyn Rawlings, a specialist medical accountant at Rowleys, said: ‘GPs are now feeling the effects of lower profits on their monthly drawings. Accounts now being complete are showing lower profits than previous years, and with the significant increases in employee’s pension contributions over the last few years from a top rate of 8.5% in 2011/12 to 13.3% in 2013/14 then monthly drawings need to reduce to ensure financial stability.

‘For a GP with pensionable earnings of around £99,000 the increase in total employee and employers’ contributions would have amounted to around £5,000 over that period.’

The effects were less severe among non-partners, where almost 60% have seen their pay remain the same. Almost 13% had their pay cut by between 1% and 10%, however.

Survey results in full 

What change in your take-home pay have you personally experienced since April (partners only)?

More than 20% increase: 5 (1.2%)

16%-20% increase: 7 (1.7%)

11-15% increase: 6 (1.4%)

6%-10% increase: 6 (1.4%)

1-5% increase: 11 (2.6%)

No change: 107 (25.2%)

1-5% decrease: 71 (16.7%)

6%-10% decrease: 110 (25.9%)

11%-15% decrease: 51 (12.0%)

16%-20% decrease: 25 (5.9%)

More than 20% decrease 25 (5.9%)

Total: 424


What change in your take-home pay have you personally experienced since April (non-partners only)?

20% or more increase: 5 (2.9%)

16%-20% increase: 0 (0%)

11-15% increase: 1 (0.6%)

6%-10% increase: 2 (1.1%)

1-5% increase: 18 (10.3%)

No change: 103 (58.9%)

1-5% decrease: 14 (8%)

6%-10% decrease: 10 (5.7%)

11%-15% decrease: 9 (5.1%)

16-20% decrease: 5 (2.9%)

More than 20% decrease: 8 (1.9%)

Total: 175


The survey launched on 31 October 2014, collating responses using the SurveyMonkey tool. The 31 questions covered a wide range of GP topics, to avoid selection bias on one issue. The survey was advertised to readers via our website and email newsletter, with a prize draw for a Samsung HD TV as an incentive to complete the survey. Some 599 GPs answered these questions.


Readers' comments (20)

  • Shock horror! all surprise then. Why would anyone want to be a GP or partner at this rate?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • An alternative model or lose the shirt off your back. Co payments and insurance (like everywhere else in the world). The UK is bankrupt. There is no more money from the state. Matters can only get worse for patients and healthcare workers without the above.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Who indeed would want to be a GP - increasing work, vilified by the ignorant greedy public and vilified by ignorant to the ways of primary care (and sometimes lazy) hospital colleagues who are only too happy to twist the knife. Be warned UK public - you get what you pay for...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It doesnt take into account the increase in work . Many GP partners I know have been working more -mainly increase in paperwork and some increase in clinical work to prevent a meltdown in income.

    So if practices stayed doing what they were the drop would be much higher I suspect.
    The government seems to be fiddling while the NHS is on fire.
    I would urge all GP`s to be part of a provider organization to plan for the imminent collapse if the Governemnt don`t listen to the BMA`s advice on work pressure and recruitment crisis in Primary Care.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If this trend continues which I have noreason to doubt then with an average real terms decrease of 5% per annum combined with the loss of seniority in 5 years this will amount to areal terms decrease of 30% at a conservative estimate. The result will be the DOH will have achieved their aim of an annual average full time principal salary of 60-70K. That will really make the job more attractive!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • All going according to the DoH plan then. They need to drive down GP wage costs prior to selling the sector off to United Health etc.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • All the comments here seemed to be resigned to this. I don't see how this is sustainable (if we cannot recruit) or why we should put up with it?

    There are numerous better models of primary care provision. The GPC should be campaigning to transition GPs from the NHS into a more stable co-payment systems that act semi-independently of government like the antipodean and European models. This will ultimately happen by default so it's far better that we engage with the transition now.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • You don't hear similar stories from dentists!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Anonymous | Sessional/Locum GP | 10 December 2014 11:16am
    The GPC should be campaigning to transition GPs from the NHS into a more stable co-payment systems"

    The BMA/GPC is not a union for its members. It has long been a political theory organisation committed to a free NHS ideology and it will NEVER seek to help its members to do anything but be in a "free" NHS.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Took Early Retirement

    I can empathize, but that is all I can do, sadly. Unless and until GPs have the guts to refuse to eat every bucket of excrement put before them by DoH etc, and instead throw it back in their collective faces, this will continue. I did indeed throw the bucket back by leaving early. I guess I was lucky. Had I been five years younger, it would have been difficult. (Though not impossible.)

    Here's how to do it:

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say