rejecting something by ballot is v easy, putting a +ve proposal is much
harder. You'r right though on one thing, if PCGs will adversely affect our
income I'll be first to the barracades, however they just might (if used
properly) increase our income. For instance, GPs at the extreme high end of
referrals and prescribing may well face being eased into retirement by peer
pressure, hence costs could fall and PCG 'profit' increase to be divided up
between its 'shareholders'?? I don't believe that any gov can be elected then
abuse it's mandate though.
----------
From: [log in to unmask] on behalf of Peter Wilson
Sent: 11 April 1998 00:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Primary Care Groups
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Caldwell <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 10 April 1998 17:34
Subject: RE: Primary Care Groups
>Absolutely right, Midge. Like 85% of the population who's only use of
>democracy is to vote every 5 years, at least they have exercised their
right
>to elect someone to represent them. Afterall we all recognise that laws
passed
>by MPs are compulsory to everyone. One cannot say "I didn't vote, therefore
I
>won't obey/recognise the legitimacy of the laws passed by this gov." The
>message is for PCGs, vote the team you want to represent and manage you, or
>stop moaning about the result if you don't!! Anti-PCGers need reminding
that
>this gov has a massive electoral mandate for changing the NHS to a 'third
>way'- a policy central to it's pre-election manifesto.
The PCG movement has been much debated now. Its strengths and weaknesses
have been pointed out and it seems there are some who view the scenario as
an opportunity whilst others regard it as a threat. Those who abhor the
compulsion, the extra work, the rationing role or the financial risks may
resign themselves to the situation because of a large Labour majority.
Others say that there is no mood in the profession for opposing the PCGs so
let's make the best of it. I wonder what it *would* take to stir the
medical profession into action.
What if, for whatever reason, your enforced workload were to be increased by
a certain percentage for no extra remuneration or resources? What percentage
would you be prepared to take on without meaningful protest? Think about it
......5%......10%......20%.......50%. Where do you draw the line?
What if, for whatever reason, your pay was reduced without any reduction in
workload? What percentage would you be prepared to lose before taking
definitive action? Similar line drawing exercise :-)
The PCG movement could effect such changes by a variety of mechanisms :-(
Still haven't seen anyone opposed to a ballot :-)
Cheers
Dr Peter Wilson
GP, Broadstairs, Kent. <http://www.albionrd.demon.co.uk>
Medical Manager - EKDOC <http://www.ekdoc.com>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|