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

DH to consult on plans to merge GMC with other health regulators

The Department of Health is launching a consultation later this year which will look at the potential of merging health regulators into one.

The Times has reported plans on the table include merging GMC and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) into one mega regulator that would cover more than a million staff.

Another option would be to merge nine health regulators into one single organisation responsible for 'registering all health professionals and carrying out disciplinary procedures'.

According to the report, plans could save 15-18% of the £200m annual health regulation budget by 'ending duplication'.

The DH suggested the report went to far, but confirmed that a consultation is planned for later this year which would look at merging health regulators.

DH spokesperson said: 'There will definitely be a consultation which should take place later in the year.

'The story in The Times was overblown. We haven’t even had the consultation yet so we can’t comment on it.

'We encourage all regulators, employers, professionals, and the public to take part. Joining the regulators is just one of the possibilities that will be consulted on.'

The Professional Standards Authority (PSA), which oversees the nine healthcare regulators, expressed support for reforms.

Director of standards and policy Christine Braithwaite said: 'Professional regulation is out of step with modern healthcare. In our paper Regulation Rethought, we suggest regulators should consider sharing functions and merging, if savings can be made for registrants.

'We recommend that health professionals should meet common standards, in keeping with multi-disciplinary care today. We also recommend the creation of a single, shared public register instead of nine separate ones, to make it easier for the public and employers to access it.'

The GMC declined to comment, while NMC chief executive and registrar Jackie Smith said she was 'pleased' that there is going to be a discussion about reforms to fitness-to-practise proceedings.

As previously reported by Pulse, the work pledged in the GP Forward View earlier last year to reduce the burden of regulation on GP practices has begun, with a regulatory programme board formed with representatives also including GMC, CCGs, NHS England and HEE.

GP indemnity provider the Medical Protection Society said it 'would be concerned about an amalgamation exercise which could result in the specific expertise of each profession’s regulator being lost'.

Pardeep Sandhu, MPS executive director of professional services, added: 'Any new regulator would need to be able to distinguish between the hugely differing roles within the many professions it would oversee.

'We also hope any consultation will place greater emphasis on ensuring more efficient regulation – limiting unnecessary impact on the health and wellbeing of healthcare professionals and their ability to get on and do their job.'

Readers' comments (11)

  • Some people are going to lose their jobs and power base. I doubt it's very popular with the regulators.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Spuds

    If it happens, then the costs of the process should not be paid by GPs.

    I would say that if the new "megaregulator" is only to register and discipline, then the ocsts must be borne entirely by government and GP fees should be scrapped

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I have said before they need to merge CQC, GMC and ombudsman and others into one - would need new leglislation, maybe somebody is reading these posts?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • happy days when gmc goes

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A virtual nobody

    The cynic in me says who's money are they trying to save ..if this is being pushed by a government department who's motivation is to 'cut the regulation budget by 15-18%' I am deeply suspicious. As far as I am aware the GMC is entirely funded by the Drs on its list..how is merging its functions with other bodies going to save the government any money unless this involves getting Drs to cross subsidise other regulatory bodies currently paid for by the government. Whilst I don't like the GMC I certainly don't trust the department of health.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think it will be very difficult to justify the current fees in a merged regulator because there will be a requirement to publish how the money is being spent (and who gets bonus private medical cover). An uber-regulator won't be allowed to discriminate against a particular group.

    One could ask if we really need them to do much more than hold a list of practioners? The most serious cases should be dealt with by the courts who are no doubt involved already. Lesser complaints could be resolved in mediation and this should occur in a 'no blame' system. The present approach relies too much on fear.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I suggest merging the GMC with ASLEF the train drivers union or maybe with Morrisons.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • or some small Hebridean council and be permanently based in Stornoway.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Does this mean I'm going to pay for the NMC as well as the GBH? GPs to pay to regulate everyone

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Whose!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say