BMA dispute ‘not credible’ as ‘one third of GPs earn more than Prime Minister’, says DHSC
The Government has claimed that the BMA’s dispute over recent GP online access changes is not ‘credible’ amid claims one in three GP partners ‘earn more than the Prime Minister’.
The doctors’ union entered dispute with the Government over the recent online access changes, arguing that they are currently not safe to implement due to a lack of safeguards and resources.
But the Department of Health and Social Care has claimed that since one in three GP partners ‘now earn more than the Prime Minister’, the BMA’s claim that practices lack resources is not ‘credible’.
It cited an analysis of NHS England data claiming that a third of GP partners made more than £175,000 last year, adding that Keir Starmer was entitled to a gross annual salary of £172,153 for the roles of MP and prime minister.
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: ‘One in three GP partners now take a larger salary than the Prime Minister. It simply isn’t credible for the BMA to say they don’t have the resources to deliver online consultations. The BMA signed up to this, it is baffling that they are now trying to turn back time.’
The Government is basing this statistic on NHS England data published at the end of August, which shows that last year the estimated average income before tax of GPs was £120,200 for combined (contractor and salaried) GPs, £158,700 for contractor GPs and £72,200 for salaried GPs.
This is based on anonymised tax data from HM Revenue and Customs’ Self Assessment tax records and covers both NHS and private income.
The Government added that the data looked at around 70% of all GP partners and 12,200 GP partners were identified by cross matching their HMRC records of all 17,750 GP partners.
The BMA said that the hours partners put in to running the practice and outside of clinical work on the business means GP partners likely earn far less per hour than the Government claims.
BMA GP committee chair Dr Katie Bramall said: ‘This is an unhelpful and deliberate distraction attempting to drive a wedge between patients and their family GP.
‘GP partners bear the responsibility for all the costs and risks associated with staffing and running a practice and increasingly have to think about their future stability in a very uncertain contractual world.
‘They receive 34p per patient per day, that’s around £125 per patient per year, on top of the unlimited business liabilities they face in their practice and ensuring there are enough funds available to cover unexpected future costs, including beyond the current financial year.’
The Doctors’ Association GP spokesperson Dr Steve Taylor pointed out that the figure quoted by the Government is based on tax returns, so it misses the fact that this includes NHS and other sources of income.
He told Pulse: ‘There are approximately 700,000 people in the UK earning more than the Prime Minister and some GPs do earn more than the PM.
‘Although the figure quoted of one in three is based on tax returns, so it misses the fact that this includes NHS and other sources of income. It also only focuses on GP Partners, with more GPs now being salaried.
‘Why the Government feels this is relevant at this time is beyond understanding, except as a way to ramp up an argument about funding GP practices.
‘GPs have invested more and more in providing care for patients with the majority seeing cuts in real terms income of 10% to 20% over the past ten years.
‘Funding requests are aimed at providing better care for patients, with employing and retaining GPs a priority.’
Katie Collin, partner at specialist medical accountancy firm Ramsay Brown LLP, said that the comments are the latest in ‘a long line of incendiary remarks’ that are ‘putting distance’ between the Government and GPs.
She told Pulse: ‘These figures just don’t look at the bigger picture, and when you consider the time that GP partners put in across a week, they earn far less per hour than [the Government’s] grand numbers suggest.
‘For many, switching off from work is all but impossible, but those hours they spend outside of clinical work, on HR, finances and compliance, to name just a couple of examples, are not taken into account.
‘That’s before you get into the impact that income and pension tax have on these annual salaries, which push GPs’ take home pay far lower.
‘Beyond the numbers, the comments also fail to consider the context behind partners’ salaries. The GP partnership model straddles both public and private – yes, it is supported by public money, but it is driven to success by partners’ drive to run profitable businesses that deliver excellent patient care.’
She added that the comments ‘seem to completely glaze over’ this reality. ‘This is just another, in many ways hugely unrealistic, stick to beat GPs with, and it’s no way to go about forging a successful relationship that improves patient outcomes,’ she added.
Health secretary Wes Streeting previously accused GP leaders of ‘conservatism’, saying that the dispute risks to ‘turn the NHS into a museum of 20th century healthcare’ and last week, he urged ‘lagging’ GP practices to implement the changes.
Also last week the Government said it will only be able to afford a 2.5% pay rise for GPs for the next financial year.
NHS England made it a contractual requirement for the highest-earning GPs to declare their income in 2022, with the requirement covering partners, salaried and locum GPs.
Related Articles
READERS' COMMENTS [26]
Please note, only GPs are permitted to add comments to articles
Forget one-third; 100% of full-time equivalent GP partners out-earn the Prime Minister. So what’s Wes doing about that?
I don’t understand what J S means at all.
The article could really go into more detail about GP partners paying their own employers contributions, it really massively distorts the figures, I’m really surprised though still that one third are earning over £175k. I don’t know anybody earning this
Once you factor in the bribes, sorry donations MPs especially the prime minister receives, plus future earning from non executive director roles and speech Ingram tours to Epstein Island attendees then the Prime minister will out earn all GPs comfortably.
The issue is fairness and not expecting GPs to have to pay for employee pay rises and National wage and NI increased contributions from their own pockets in a time of increased workload and expectations from general practice.
Herein lies the issue:
Ever since the 2004 contract tied almost all Practice income to list size and composition, and offered zero reward for having more GPs, a substantial number of GP partners have chosen to provide shitty care to protect and increase profits.
Or have stubbornly refused to grow/encourage partnerships in favour of only offering salaried jobs.
If you are earning £200k+/yr and provide demonstrably crap care to your patients YOU are part of the problem.
These vested interests need scrutinised, supported to improve clinician numbers, and ultimately broken up if they fail to do so.
Supply of prime minister jobs: 1
Qualifications needed for Prime Minister: 0
Perks: housing; pension; massive future earnings opportunities
Liability: limited
So low low supply, low barrier to entry, high demand for job – therefore no market pressure for Prime
Minister to have a higher salary than many other jobs.
Not sure Starmer deserves £172,153 based on performance -maybe £72,153 and the odd freebie Taylor Swift concert if he can persuade his front bench to behave themselves!
Shocking numbers! Not a good look for these ~6,000 GP principals (some perhaps commenting here on Pulse) or for the profession. Or for the BMA. Should have got our own house in order..
No wonder the BMA’s been reluctant to take any real industrial action – didn’t want these facts to come out and to be crucified by the media.
While at the same time, the BMA has sacrificed f/t and p/t salaried GPs who’ve been doing real clinical care and who’ve suffered wage disparity and stagnation, and GP locums who are currently unemployed or under-employed. Disgraceful!
@graham.lyons – totally agree.
Perhaps DHSC, BMA and RCGP should be looking at the average partner per session profit share vs average salaried GP per session rates?
So the total resources available to deal with the substantial increased demand are meant to come from the profits of a practice 🤔 Given that a minimum wage role will cost a practice employer £30000 per annum there is not a huge amount of financial capacity even if you believe the headline. Perhaps GP partners are meant to move into their free house to rent out their owned home and rely upon the free chauffeured travel 🤦🏼♂️
Nobody’s asking partners to “move into a free house”. GP partners aren’t being asked to work for free — just to act like leaders, not landlords, in a system built on public trust. Average partners profit in my area is £300 k.
I guess JS means: who can work as a “full time” GP contract. I fill 3 day week equals more than a 40 hr week
“Average partners profit in my area is £300 k.”
You know the personal financial details for lots of Partners in your area, and it’s around twice the UK average. Sure.
The comments highlight precisely the motive behind DHSC making these remarks. Trying to sow some dissent amongst the ranks to get salaried and partner GPs bickering, to distract from the fact that irrespective of how you earn your crust, if you’re in General Practice at the moment you’re overworked, spread too thinly, being asked daily to compromise care in ways you wouldn’t have dreamed of doing 5 years ago and being scapegoated by the media for all that is wrong in the world.
Let’s not fall for it eh?
Do GPs really have the same (or better) “salary package and perks” as the Prime Minister? I do not know any GPs who have free accommodation and catering and live on Downing Street? I don’t know any GPs who have use of a country residence such as Chequers or a chauffeur driven car. Do any GPs sit in the Director’s Box at the Emirates Stadium to watch Arsenal? If being a GP Partner is so easy and lucrative, I wonder why no one wants to do it anymore. Is the Prime Minister’s salary affected if he mismanages the public finances? Story from the Guardian Sept 2024 : “Starmer’s £100,000 in tickets and gifts more than any other recent party leader”.Classic Government and press short sighted and political GP bashing. The Government claims to want the highest quality and best accessible healthcare for all but wants highly trained, experienced , knowledgeable and senior GPs to do an unlimited amount of work and not get rewarded for doing it.
Red Tories blowing the dog whistle don’t fall for it comrades
Not sure whataboutery is a good defence to the indefensible – in my city, there’s a group of usual suspects who earn >£180k, do 1-2 patient clinics/wk, while offering sh*t access and care.
And talking to many sessional GPs, they do not believe we’re in it together – there’s a clear difference of power and income between principals and sessional GPs. Why shouldn’t the politics of Govt expose this chasm? It’s not as if our profession has ever taken responsibility for sorting out it’s 10-20% “rotten apples” and biscuit munching GP principals.
If this Govt can enshrine continuity of care and spend new money into the NHS, then maybe it’s time for a salaried service guaranteeing full employment to all GPs who want it.
So tired of this repeat narrative of partners v salaried. What an utter load of bollocks…. Sure there are some partners who take the p… Equally there are some salaried who turn up and do the minimum with very little in return with absolutely zero responsibility. The underlying issue is a chronically underfunded General Practice that us being undermined and gaslighted by yet another appallingly incompetent government. Wake up to the crass divide and rule evidenced by the nonsense being promulgated by this lot
The real point here is that this is not a fair comparison. I happen to have gross earnings of ~£175k as a full time GP with investment income. After costs, tax and pension this is ~£75k net (very variable of course). The Prime Minister being entitled to £175k in his current public sector employment with no business risk or investment is not the same thing. Using HMRC self assessment tax returns is misleading. If they want this one third of GP partners to earn less then they should be prepared for substantial reduction in service provision, substantial increase in costs or both.
1. Agree that there are equally some terrible principals and salaried GPs – but the difference is the crap partner grabs >£175k, while the crap salaried GP only gets £72k, on average. That’s a category difference.
2. I agree that general practice has been underfunded for years so why, in this climate, are one-third of rotten GP partners helping themselves to >£175k of Unearned profit? There’s Nothing special about them – they don’t heal cancer by the laying on of hands do they? – these landlord, rentier, committee loving biscuit munchers!!
3. The link to the data shows the mean income, mean expenses and gross income. So instead of obfuscating, shouldn’t the lower earning decent GP principals take responsibility and call out the 1/3 of them that tarnish everyone with their profiting from the NHS? Better we do it or the Daily Mail will..
The Prime Minister receives, as part of their ‘package’ a central London residence, use of a grace and favour country mansion, travel expenses, work related food and a lifelong gig on the multimillion after dinner speaker/memoir circuit. In short, their salary does not really reflect what they receive in return for their service. I don’t see any GPs receiving those kind of benefits…
Yep, that’s just the sort of “sophisticated” and “educated” argument that ordinary voting people want to hear from tone-deaf >£175k+ GPs….dear oh dear 🙄. If that’s the best argument, then bring on a salaried service Wes and correct the error from 1948….
Interesting use of the tactic employed by populists and the powerful, saying “we” to cover the £175k one-third GPs, the two-thirds decent GP partners, the £72k salaried GPs, and locums, and unemployed GPs….I personally have never been a part of the self-congratulating £175k+ club
#Not in it together
#getyourhouseinorder
#£175k+.conservativeburghers
Fully salaried Gp service will not be financially viable .
Government knows that very well . So that’s not going to happen any soon. Government hasn’t got money to buy out all practice premises.
Depends on whether they’re fairly valued. In my first partnership years ago, the agreed independent valuer valued our premises at £400k, but the senior/senile partners wanted £900k!!! Criminal, and crook. I left these humourless businessmen “GPs” with their snouts in the trough shortly afterwards. I know a few 65- 70 Yr old partners using their ownership of premises as a powerful weapon over younger GP partners.
Anyway, there’s always nationalisation of the independent contractor status and compulsory purchase.
What about the 66% of GPs doesn’t earn that much.
The total amount spent on primary care is 12 billons of the 150 billions NHS budget. The NHS can’t manage the 140 billions as they are always in red. I am not sure if the NHS takes the 12 billions it will improve Primary care outcomes.
Looking at the stats for hospital consultants their mean pay including private and NHS is £174,000, So near 50% earn similar or more than Starmer.
44% of hospital trusts were in deficit at end of last tax year. Are we suggesting they too take a pay cut to improve patient services.
And maybe MPs can take a pay cut to improve public services overall. Or just do their job properly.
The 10 year plan intends to merge GPs into multi surgeries with buildings funded by PFI; we are still paying the £80 billion last time Blair did this for hospital buildings.
Managed top down by large hospital trusts or private companies; So we can move from GPs providing 90% of NHS consults for 7% of budget to the marvellous cost efficiencies of trusts that use most of the rest of that budget to provide the minority of work with 44% in deficit at the end of the last tax year.
Should work excellently for the tax payers money.
Their second aim of prevention rather than cure ignores the Dimbleby Food report that could raise tax revenue and fight obesity by taxing junk and ultra processed food and instead wants to make obesity medications available ‘fairly’ to all through tax payers money; at 30% of the population obese, and injections £300/person/month life long that’s £54 billion per year on weight loss injections alone.
While the single health record will likely cost the tax payer tens of billions and primarily benefits tech billionaires including Blair’s main donor Larry Ellison (2nd richest man in the world after Musk-donated £300 million over 18 months to Blair’s Institute), Blair interviews Ellison at the world government summit earlier this year and said the NHS data is uniquely valuable but needs integration and organisation to harness that value and develop AI models on. Blair attempted the single electronic health record under his previous government and it cost an estimated £14-20 billion and failed. The cost kept rising and no results were forthcoming so it was ditched for cheaper models that could actually work.
It’s unsurprising that this government looks like a dodgy Blair tribute act as his previous health secretary Alan Milburn, is lead non executive member of the board for the department of Health and Social care. That is Milburn of the previous costly PFI fiasco and Darzi centres that bear some resemblance to our new ‘neighbourhood centres’.
Apparently Starmer told us all we were voting for change.
Feeling more like deja vu than change folks.