I didn't say there shouldn't be a cooperative approach.
My point is this - unless GPs take an active interest
and a leading role in PCG development and governance,
then the *crucial* decisions on rationing, allocation of
resources, etc will be taken by parties with no real vested
interest in general practice.
I am all in favour of cooperation.
I am not in favour of general practice being run by a
consortium of outside interests.
An analogy
- when planning services a bus company may take
into account the timetables of neighbouring companies, rail
links, local businesses etc, in order to plan an efficient and
effective service. However, no company would allow
the running (and the funding) of its services to be determined
by outside parties.
--
Ruth Livingstone
http://www.stamford.co.uk/littlesurgery/
----------
From: [log in to unmask] on behalf of Andrew Herd
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 1998 01:43
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Millburns Letter Summary
>I agree with Jeff. I don't really see why PCGs should pose such a threat to
contractor independence, particularly if GPs have a built in majority on the
boards. Given such a case, to say that PCGs do pose a threat is to say that
the real enemy of general practice is GPs themselves.
>> Why the either or? Is there no argument for a cooperative approach?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|