> >FWIW, I think it's inconceivable that an amount, whatever it
> >was called, would no longer be set for individual practices. I would
> >guess that this would be the starting point in 1999/00 rather than
> >allocations to PCGS from HAs. I would also guess that, nationally,
> >allocations will to HAs rather than direct to PCGs. Good question Rob
> >but, as Andrew says, premature. Wait 'til you're told !
Ahmad commented:
> That arrangement would punch a great big hole in the entire ideology
> behind PCGs!
True, but it's unavoidable that, for the time being at
least, the natural starting baseline *is* the practice. Besides,
there will be an understandable and irrepressible curiosity to know
how other practices in the group are doing against 'budget' and on
other markers in addition to the PCG's aggregate performance. Already
happens in areas with well-formed locality groups and in the pilot
LCGs/PCGs.
Mark
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|