[log in to unmask],Net writes:
>There is a flaw in this proposition.
>The Firm will not work in the NHS arena alone. There has to be a source
>of funding that is not from a cash limited government controlled body -
>i.e. it would only really work in private healthcare.
I doubt that.
1. THe funding is the same as that currently applied, to pay for the
same number of doctors and others treating the same number of patients.
Collecting that funding at present requires a great deal of effort
which detracts from the real work.
2. The benefit of the Firm as much as anything else for the GPs is
that the first duty of the management is to generate for us the level
of income we have determined to be correct.
3. If all GPs in town are in the same firm, if it is considered as a
partnership, we need a change to ToS to allow us to treat each other's
patients privately, as we can at present, despite having banded
together.
4. Owning a building, often in negative equity, is one of the leading
causes of stress and distress to GPs at present. Sell all th buildings
to the Firm, raising money from national sources if possible, or more
expensively as a PFI or straight bank loan, thus removing that stress.
And then, provided we each have a cosy nook when we want it, why should
we care if our old building is sold?
Bill, the HA has to be persuaded to alow a practice to close a surgery.
Unless such agreement was forthcoming, the Firm would be required to
provide the surgery hours advertised at all existing premises. THere
are many arrangements one might come to, but a sudden unilateral
closure is not possible at present.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|