Michael Leuty wrote:
> If that is the case, we will end up with a random and inequitable
> distribution of funding between practices, which is precisely what the
> MPIG was introduced to avoid.
I don't think that was quite what it was intended for.
Was not the MPIG introduced because having had the figures and rules
worked out carefully Ministers then introduced changes, causing the
prospect of some practices being unviable immediately?
Salvage rather than quity.
|