This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

NHS England withholds secret list of potential PMS practice losses

Exclusive NHS England has refused to release its internal estimates of the potential losses for practices affected by a two-year review of PMS funding to GPC negotiators.

Pulse understands a row has broken out between the GPC and the contracting body over the decision not to release the details of PMS practices affected by the £258m funding review.

Managers said that the estimates are based on unaudited data and their publication could ‘prejudice the outcome of local discussions between practices and area teams’.

But GPC negotiators say that managers should be more transparent and give negotiation teams the data ‘with which to negotiate’ to protect practices most at risk.

NHS England spent 2013 collecting evidence on PMS practice funding to underpin a major redistribution of PMS funds - the details of which were made public earlier this week.

NHS England has urged area teams to look at whether £258m worth of PMS spending should be ‘redeployed’ over the next two years, with the GPC losing its battle to ensure that all funding withdrawn from PMS practices is reinvested in core funding.

An NHS England spokesperson said: ‘We are committed to improving transparency of practice earnings. However, we cannot share these particular figures without individual practice consent because they are estimates based on unaudited data and their publication could prejudice the outcome of local discussions between practices and area teams.’

But GPC negotiator Dr Peter Holden said: ‘Why can’t we have the national data on which to negotiate in this era of transparency. It is not logical to say I have got to tell them what my income is, yet you will not give the negotiation teams the data with which to negotiate.’

NHS England recently also denied a Pulse request under the Freedom of Information Act for details of the technical group who will be reviewing the Carr-Hill allocation formula for GP practice funding, saying that the release of the information was exempt from the ‘public interest test’.

Readers' comments (4)

  • This is a cop out..double standard which leaves public and professional disgrantteled. This behaviour is ' bullish' - you do what I say and rules only appy to othes and not the goverment. well lets wait and see how this goverment will fair with its 'bullying'/suppressive attitude to public workers.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • what dose disgrentteled mean? I do wish some contibutors' grammar and spelling was better - frankly this is embarrassing

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • anonymous above why did you not do spell check yourself? What dose instead of does above should embarrass you too.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Haha! That is a brilliant thread.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say