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

GPC demands review body ditch 'disastrous' method of determining practice funding

Exclusive The GPC has asked the independent pay review body to recommend an ‘above inflation’ funding uplift for GPs across the UK next year using its own discretion, instead of the formula traditionally used to calculate GP expenses.

In its evidence to the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration (DDRB) on funding increases for 2015/16, the GPC said it will not recommend an alternative formula to the one currently used, contrary to previous statements.

Instead, it has asked the DDRB to use its own discretion without the ‘straitjacket’ of a funding formula by taking into account the growing recruitment crisis and the cutting of minimum price income guarantee (MPIG) funding, following a series of below-inflation recommendations.

The DDRB report from last year admitted flaws around calculating GP expenses and requested for new statistics to be collated in response.

However, the BMA has now said that it had ‘significant concerns’ over the bureaucracy involved in practices analysing their accounts for this purpose.

The GPC’s evidence said: ‘We have attempted to revise the formula used by the DDRB to translate its net income recommendation into a gross earnings uplift. However, we are unable to identify alternative indicators that produce better results, so this year we are asking to make a recommendation for gross earnings without the use of the formula.’

But it added that ‘it may actually be easier’ to make the recommendation without ‘the “straitjacket” of a formula’ that caused last year’s ‘perverse’ result, whereby the DDRB recommended an 0.28% gross funding uplift in order to produce a 1% increase in GP pay because the formula calculated that expenses had gone down.

The BMA said: ‘If other parties or the DDRB itself have suggestions for how to rework a formula, we would of course be very pleased to assist with this, but we do not believe this will now be possible for this round.’

The BMA further argued that the DDRB should award an above inflation increase, because ‘practice expenses have increased disproportionately to income’, quoting HSCIC statistics showing that expenses accounted for 62.5% of funding in 2012/13, compared with 59.3% in 2008/09.

It also dismissed the Governement’s suggestion that GPs, like all public sector workers, should receive a pay increase of 1%.

The submission said: ‘The BMA believes that doctors deserve an award in excess of inflation this year. We do not accept the Government’s pre-announced figure of 1%. We are not however including a specific figure we are seeking by way of a pay increase.’

It also warned that in light of for example shrinking QOF earnings and MPIG withdrawals, ‘without additional funding there will undoubtedly be a significant proportion of GPs who can only continue to deliver a full range of quality services by taking a very substantial cut in their personal income’.

GPC deputy chair Dr Richard Vautrey said: ‘We have said in our evidence to the DDRB that we believe we don’t need to use the formula this year, that they can simply made an award depending on expenses without using the formula. They can do that. It is in their gift to do that. They can use their independence, they are an independent body. They have seen the result of using the formula and it was a disaster, so I think, they cannot do that again. It would just compound one error with another.’

Readers' comments (6)

  • What a pointless article about the activities of a pointless organisation (i.e. the GPC/BMA)!

    Every year the BMA asks for a decent uplift in contract fees to account for rising GP expenses. Every year the DDRB ignores the evidence submitted by the GPC and suggests a GP contract price that results in falling income.

    ... on the rare occasion that the DDRB recommends a tiny increase in contract price (that doesn't account for rising expenses and ultimately leads to falling income) the DOH ignores the DDRB and imposes its own contract price.

    Can someone please explain the point of this circus other than to give the GPC something to do and write about?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "The GPC has asked the independent pay review body to recommend an ‘above inflation’ funding uplift for GPs across the UK next year"
    HMG must be quaking in its boots!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The current model of the GPC turning up with its begging bowl is quite frankly humiliating. When doctors are leaving the UK in droves leaving areas with limited medical care, it is us who should be dictating terms rather than face the embarrassment of yet another pay cut.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Don't demand uplift, lets try starting at a no cuts and reduce pension contributions and reinstate payments for service.
    An uplift just fans the Daily Wail

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Since 2004 , GPs have received an average 2.1% cut in earnings according to the government figures.
    http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB14924/gp-earn-ex-1213-rep.pdf
    Page 55

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • RPI has increased 33% since 2004 so does this mean we have had a real terms pay cut of 35.5% ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say