>The particular factor which has enforced them is the requirement to
>visit (when condition requires it) at the registered address.
>
>Previously the temporary resident item of service fee or the immed.
>nec. service fee was satisfactory for rewarding a practice who dealt
>with someone else's patient in the area in whcih they were willing to
>visit.
>
>The only two actions required in order to make it possible to achieve
>what has been declared to be desired are to change the requirement to
>visit all patients registered to one to visit within the practice
>area, and to reinstate those two fees as additional fees to existing
>income.
>
>The Treasury, I'm told, has blocked each previous attempt at this
>becuse they reject the potential for two doctors to get paid for
>looking after teh same patient.
>
>I'm neutral on this.
>
>Adrian Midgley
Thanks both.
Interestingly (for me anyway) BBC had a piece on this on News
24. They gave a very even handed account, interviewing a patient, an
individual GP at the practice that was unable / unwilling to register
her, and Dr Gerada from the RCGP.
At the moment the two opposing views seem to have resulted in a bit
of a dialogue of the deaf, and the government needs some sensible
ideas to resolve this in everyone's interests before some well
intentioned incompetence (?at least partly the responsibility of the
civil service) causes inevitable problems, likely more significant
than any benefit. Whether those ideas will even be heard if they
come from the profession is another matter, we can but hope.
I think we need to acknowledge there is a problem, and seek a
solution that will work - not what is on the table at present.
J
|