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

Trick or treat? PM announces a new GP contract

David Cameron promises increased funding for practices, but the GPC brands his new contract a ‘distraction’, finds Jaimie Kaffash

David cameron SUO

Halloween may be safely behind us, but GPs are still in the dark about whether the Government’s latest offering is a candy fest or another bag of tricks.

After the poor response to the ‘new deal’ for the profession, the Prime Minister has sought to re-set his relationship with GPs by announcing a new voluntary contract from 2017.

David Cameron vowed to boost funding and banish the spectres of ‘box ticking and form filling’. In return, he said practices would have to ensure patients had access to a seven-day service.

Pulse has already learned that the new contract may not be all that it seems. While practice funding will no longer be linked to the QOF, GPs may still have to record activity under the framework.

The contract will also be restricted to practices or federations with lists of at least 30,000 patients and, although Mr Cameron pledged to ‘work with the profession’, the Department of Health has refused several times to confirm to Pulse whether the new contract would be developed in negotiation with the GPC.

The world is starting to look very different. I welcome the opportunity 

Dr Nigel Watson 

The PM’s announcement – a complete surprise to the GPC – was made during an interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show before the Conservative party conference in Manchester. In response, GPC chair Dr Chaand Nagpaul said the new contract was a ‘diversion’ and that what was needed were ‘proper levels’ of investment in GP services and thousands more GPs.

But the new contract presents something of a problem for the GPC. It will be voluntary and promises to deliver greater funding for practices at a time when national negotiations have failed to prevent year-on-year pay freezes. And many local leaders have said they will not dismiss the idea just yet.

The break-up of the national GP contract is already happening. The devolved nations have already gone their own ways, with Scotland planning to ditch the QOF entirely by 2017. In England, many CCGs under co-commissioning are taking a more enlightened approach, with one recently offering a completely different local deal to GPs, with the average GMS practice gaining around £200k.

What will the Government’s new GP contract mean for me?

Joint contracts with trusts

The new GP contract fits in neatly with NHS England’s Five Year Forward View, which urges GPs to take on more specialist care. The ‘vanguard’ pilots of the new models of care in many areas are the driver behind the new contract, and it will enable a combined contract between hospitals and large GP practices for the first time.

Some LMC leaders see this as an important move. Dr Nigel Watson, GPC member and chief executive of Wessex LMCs, says: ‘This is driving change and the world is beginning to look very different. I welcome the opportunity to explore a new voluntary contract. It will provide opportunities.

‘Change is always something people will fear; in my view we need to explore the opportunities and also ensure the negative aspects, if there are any, are addressed.’

Dr Mohammed Jiva, chief executive at Rochdale LMC, says practices are already discussing the ‘opportunities and threats’ of the new contract. He tells Pulse: ‘[It was] discussed earlier this week with my LMC, who are supportive of exploring the opportunities of a voluntary contract.

‘Until there is “meat on bone” there is little reason to close the door without exploring the offer.’

Small practices adrift?

But others are less positive. Dr Philip Fielding, chair of Gloucestershire LMCs, warns the Government’s primary care strategy ‘seems to be in freefall’.

He says: ‘The viability of small practices (four partners or fewer) is seriously in question thanks to uncontrollable cost pressures, increasing workload, patient expectation and reduced drawings. A new voluntary contract with strings attached may be the equivalent of changing one set of chains with another as we are thrown back into the sea as too insignificant to matter.’

And GPC deputy chair Dr Richard Vautrey – predictably – is gloomy about the prospects of a good deal for practices.

He says: ‘We have had voluntary contracts for over a decade with PMS and then APMS, but the majority of GPs have remained with the national GMS contract and patients want and expect the high quality and consistency offered by a locally based and nationally funded GP service.

‘Many GPs going through difficult PMS reviews also realise how vulnerable practices can be when subject to local funding pressures.’

Dr Vautrey adds that the new contract was being driven ‘for ideological reasons’, with the Prime Minister looking to marginalise the nationally negotiated contract ‘just because it was the Labour Government at the time that negotiated it’.

But the politics are all pointing in one direction, with the health secretary recently admitting that primary care had been underfunded for years as a ‘penance’ for the initial financial gains under the 2004 GP contract. GPs have suffered cuts in their take-home pay in eight out of the past nine years under the national GP contract, and there is no sign that public sector austerity over the next few years will deliver anything different under the majority Conservative administration.

The GPC is going to have to work hard to persuade GPs to stick with the national contract if they are offered a boost in funding under this new voluntary deal. If large numbers do move over, then it will have a drastic effect on the GPC’s bargaining power. But then, perhaps, that is what the PM is banking on.

What could be in the new contract?

Seven-day access

Weekend and evening GP access will be central to the contract. The Prime Minister has said that not all practices in a federation would need to be open, but there would have to be some sort of provision.

Chance of inclusion: 10/10

Removal of the QOF

It is also certain that practices will not need to do QOF in order to get funding. However, health secretary Jeremy Hunt told Pulse they will still need to record their work.

9/10

More funding per patient

The contract is likely to retain capitated payments, and the Government has said it would put ‘more money’ into the contract. But quite how much will be made clearer in this autumn’s Spending Review.

8/10

Enhanced care home service

Jeremy Hunt told a Conservative party conference fringe event that GP responsibility for care home patients needed to be ‘transformed’. The new contract may include greater requirements for GPs for this group of patients.

6/10

Indemnity cover

There has been greater acknowledgement from the Government and NHS England that GPs’ indemnity costs are becoming a problem. It would make sense for both sides if the Government provided some sort of crown indemnity cover as a sweetener in the new contract.

7/10

Rate this article  (3.75 average user rating)

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

Readers' comments (11)

  • Too many strings . Not enough bacon .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Or pork chops .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Plenty of sow's ears though.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • if it reduced QoF, increased funding a little and provided crown indemnity I think there will be interest because the 7 day working and care home part is easy to deliver at scale (although obviously not if you just read all the negativity on Pulse)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    (1) The nature of the war game never really change.
    (2) Politicians always want to change the rules for political gain
    (3) The damages the coalition and present governments had inflicted on us , had not come without repercussions . The extraordinary amount of colleagues leaving and retiring with practice closures , is probably beyond the original expectations of the Tories( correct me if I am wrong on this). This has strangely become a 'buffer' medium and changed the texture of the reality.
    (4) The shock to our system did wake up some , not all,people in these establishments representing us. The voice of 'moaning'(as labelled by bureaucrats ) amongst our colleagues has become louder and louder. Thanks to media like Pulse as well as social networking to accommodate us , as we could have been marginalised easily in the olden days.
    (5) As I used a term Mexican Standoff before , something will have to give eventually . I am rather pessimistically optimistic (if you know what I mean).
    (6) But the three fronts remain: on the actual negotiation table , anti-spinning against a media war and measures to protect and defend ourselves as a group/groups in all fashions.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The main thrust seems to be large group practice formation . All the better to privatise . It seems to gel with stock market pundits which hail healthcare as the new mining . Rio -Tinto NHS maybe.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Also look for the following in it:
    - Co-payment/top-up/insurance
    - The right to advertise services
    - The contract being held by Ltd company (ie not directly to proffessionals)
    - Removal of reimbursements for IT/Estates

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • An apology and some respect would be a good start.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sounds like Clinical Commissioners are trying to steal a march on the GPC again.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yet more autocratic bullying from flash man
    When will this ignorant arrogant man and his toady sos learn that the first aspect of good management is discussion
    Hopelessly incompetent

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been moderated

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say

IMPORTANT: On Wednesday 7 December 2016, we implemented a new log in system, and if you have not updated your details you may experience difficulties logging in. Update your details here. Only GMC-registered doctors are able to comment on this site.