Ahmad
I know your present policy is to fight against the whole concept of PCGs, and
I wish you luck in your endeavours (although I do not agree with you).
However, I would strongly advise you to develop a contingency plan, if , as
seems likely you are forced into bed with these neighboring big spenders.
Remember, PCGs are not supposed to be made up of just GPs. You can dilute the
influence of your fellow GPs by ensuring that the community trusts, CHC, PPGs,
HA and any other interested party you can think of, is allowed a voice.
You can lobby like mad, for an agreement to ring fence practice prescribing
and staff budgets WITHIN the PCGs, so that your budget in these areas is
protected. If *you* get to work on it NOW, while everything is still flexible,
and there is nothing written in tablets of stone, then you have a chance of
assuring a fair distribution of resources within the PCG.
I am really concerned that if you sit back and let others run the PCG on your
behalf - you will end up in deep and smelly cow dung.
--
Ruth
http://www.stamford.co.uk/littlesurgery/
----------
From: [log in to unmask] on behalf of Ahmad Risk
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 09:32
To: gp-uk
Subject: Of Luddites and Martyrs
In the last century, the Luddites were fighting for their jobs and
livelihoods.
So were the Tolpuddle bunch, but somehow, their reputation fared much
better.
In my area (locality), there is a LCG made up of 10 Practices. Five
attend the meetings regularly (big spenders), one (me) occasionally and
four never attended.
We have a meeting end of the month. The motion before the group is to
form a Level 1 PCG.
Everybody knows (including the HA) that the motion will be defeated.
The 5 big spenders want a Level 2 PCG, *and* at the same time, they
have been courting a near by group of Practices to get into bed with,
deliberately *excluding* the other 4+1
The word on the street is that when the motion is defeated, the
Chairman will then hold talks with those Practices who have voted *for*
it to *re-consider* their position!! No other motion is put forward.
That is it.
The 4 who never took an interest + me are not big enough to form a
group. Even if we were, how come all of a sudden we are going to work
together when this has never happened during all those years?
The HA maintains an astonishing attitude. On the one hand, they say:
"we can't interfere with what's happening, it's up to you doctors";
and on the other, if the motion is defeated, they also say: "we will
have no option but to allocate you to that group you just voted not to
join".
All this is wrong. Very wrong. Morally and ethically wrong.
Furthermore, decisions made by the big spenders would ultimately have a
direct adverse impact on my income. Because of the way votes are
allocated, I can never influence the decision making process,
especially when the big spenders already know that the other 4+1 didn't
want to join them in the first place and given the fact the 4 are not
really interested anyway.
This is all very sad and very wrong.
Do not dare tell me that a thumping majority in a 2 minutes election
every five years bestows the right to do that to people. Don't. Just
don't.
It is morally and ethically wrong and I intend not to go down without a
real fight.
First step: deprive the BMA of my =a3200+ odd subscription. This money is
better spent on an alternative. I see no reason whatsoever that they
should get that money other than the classified section of the journal.
That's on the web anyway ;-)
Second step: well, I'll just have to keep you guessing, won't I?
Ahmad
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
Dr Ahmad Risk
http://www.cybermedic.org
Chairman British Healthcare Internet Association <http://www.bhia.org>
Director Internet Healthcare Coalition - USA <http://www.ihc.net>
Home: +44 1273 724866/748198
Work: +44(1737)240022 Fax: +44 1737 244660
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|