In the narrow sense, Gwemn's comments are correct. Doing flu jabs is bad for
the prescribing budget and good for take home pay.
Looking at it in wider terms (and I am not sure that this is what Gwen was
after), I don't entirely disagree with you. But, if you are correct, the
best way to get paid would be to do nothing at all, because the pool system
would mean that all the money eventually percolated back into capitation
fees.
(-:
A
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Graham Balin
> Sent: 10 June 1998 20:04
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re[2]: re flu jabs and freedom to prescribe
Surely not. Is this not another case of how the profession has scored an
> own goal
>
> ? For years, Medeconomics etc have run articles about *"Maximising* your
> flu jab income". Now nearly everyone does it, we are all financially
> penalised if we do *not* run hell-for-leather and vaccinate every elder
> and diabetic and asthmatic on the list. If we include younger bods,^^
> then in a few years we will have vastly increased our workload for *no*
> remuneration as the 'pool' system means we only get what the Review Body
> suggests and the govt. phases in. No-one believes that workload
> increases and pays accordingly.
>
> ^^ and then Medeconomics can run articles by the 'financially astute'
> telling us how we can maximise our income by doing flu jabs with the
> 6-week check,MMR and MMR2 kiddies!
>
> Graham
>
> I used to be apathetic...now, I just don't care.
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|