On Fri 20 Mar, Jel Coward wrote:
> > Adrian Midgley writes:
> >
> > However only one group have their own money involved in it.
> > GPs are the shareholders. Some other members of PCGs and
> > the PCT may need reminding of that, or else inviting to
> > contribute their share and buy into the practice.
> >
> > Or, to put us all on an even footing, perhaps the Govt will
> > wish to nationalise us.
>
> Listen to Midge - he has just summed up the true horror - we are the
> shareholders but we listen to our colleagues saying - get an MP on
> the board, dilute GP input by haveing a few more social workers or
> CHC bods...
>
> Wise up people!!!!
>
> This is a *serious* threat to us - probably a resigning issue if any
> of us have any bottle these days.
Threat, yes. Opportunity too. Resigning issue - I think not.
The concerns which have been raised include the way in which groups
will be formed, the (lack of) funding for developing groups, the
responsibility for budgets and rationing, the risk to income from the
linkage with cash-limited GMS (risk which is only carried by the GP
members of the PCGs), the perceived lack of guidance and the time
scales involved.
All of these concerns need to be addressed, and I can assure you that
they get fed back to the centre. The alternative to trying to argue
our case would be some sort of work to rule followed by sanctions /
conflict and an unknown outcome, perhaps an imposed national salaried
contract, who knows?
Just what is the alternative on offer, Ahmad?
As the options come into focus I think the majority of our colleagues
will agree that collaboration is preferable to conflict in this
instance. Listening to our GMSC leaders I just can't see a unified
coherent response from general practice in favour of striking over
this issue.
--
Dr Ian Trimble http://www.sherwood.demon.co.uk/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|