Forgive my scepticism.
What about the non-fundholders being bailed out through the same mechanism?
One of the things PCGs are going to bring home pretty quick is the
differential resource consumption of practices regardless of their colour,
race, creed or fundholding status. Some of the holier than thou brigade are
going to find themselves being asked hard questions by their peers, and
hiding behind the politics may not work this time.
The defence of "it was all clinically indicated" is unlikely to be seen as a
good excuse, since a skim through this group shows we do not accept that
argument from the hospital physicians who we see as dumping on us - in the
unified budget world, GPs will find themselves being subjected to the same
criticism.
Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ahmad Risk
> Sent: 05 April 1998 19:14
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Primary Care Groups
>
>
> On 04/05/98 06:04:16, Katabront <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> What other lessons we mustn't forget?
>
> Oh, having the review body recommendations ignored year on year, or
> the pay award being staged year on year. Seeing my real income go down
> year on year is something I won't forget quickly.
>
> We did pretty well since 1990. We have HP bands, HP clinics, business
> plans, annual reports, over 75 checks (remember those? Oh yes, they
> are still around!), we have unpaid locality committee work, we have
> unpaid TR telephone work, we have unpaid work dumped from the
> hospitals, we have increasing levels of complaints and litigation, we
> have erosion of the real value of premises, ***we have fundholders being
> bailed out by everybody else through the pool system***, we have the pool
> system and clawbacks. It goes on and on, doesn't it?
Various edits
> Ahmad
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|