We don't at the moment want Pat to feel that earnings are none of her
business as we are asking the DDRB to pronounce on GP earnings!
I think what Mike means is that it is not the government's business what
proportion of income is taken as profit. Of course, in considering
profit, partnerships are not comparable with companies since pay is
taken out of a company's accounts before the calculation of profit.
Unless partners are doing no work there must be an idea of pay for the
clinical work which can be discounted before we calculate the residual
profit that we receive just for owning the business and taking the
associated risks and responsibilities..
The DDRB makes recommendations for salaried GPs which are based on a 40
hour week (IIRC) with an upper scale of £76,462. GP principals have to
pay all their superannuation on top of this ie an additional 14%. They
are responsible for 52.5 hours a week. This means that they should
receive pay of £114,406. NB this takes no account of leave, which of
course for salaried GPs is paid but for partners costs them money. That
raises the comparable sum partners should be paid but let's not be grasping.
Hey! What a swiz, partners are only receiving £106,000 on average.
Clearly we are receiving £8,000 a year less than the going rate.......
PS Midge before you point out the glaring howlers in my calculation I
know about them already. My contention is that there are lies, damn lies
and statistics and mine are better!
Fay
Bill Westwood wrote:
> How do you get Patsy to understand that though?
>
> Bill
>
> On 21 Jan 2007, at 21:04, Michael Leuty wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/07, Bill Westwood <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> It's difficult not to believe there is a conspiracy at work to
>>> demoralise
>>> GPs and ultimately get rid of them,
>>
>> I honestly don't think New Labour are clever enough to arrange a
>> conspiracy. It's pure ignorance, short-sightedness and self interest.
>> They've cocked up education, the petrol crisis (I recall a minister at
>> a press conference, several days into the crisis, admittng that they
>> hadn't understood how petrol distribution worked), Iraq, the hospital
>> sector and medical training. The past being the best guide to future
>> behaviour, why should anyone think they are likely to improve general
>> practice?
>>
>> My recollection is that during the contract negotiations, the
>> Government insisted that contracts should be held by practices and not
>> with individual GPs. I think this was so that services could be
>> provided by any private company in future, not just those owned by
>> GPs. Once prices for services are agreed, it's none of the
>> Government's business how much any individual within a private company
>> earns.
>>
>> --Michael Leuty
>> Nottingham, UK
>>
>
>
>
>
> --No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.2/641 - Release Date:
> 20/01/2007 10:24
>
>
|