> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 19:17:30 EST
> Subject: Re: Untitled
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Reply-to: [log in to unmask]
> In a message dated 01/02/98 22:07:49 GMT, you write:
>
> << he first panic date is probably 1/10/98 for GPFH's. If you set an
> expected treartment date of 18 months then you are into Y2K...will
> your fundholder software cope???
>
> Dr David J Plews >>
>
> You are joking, surely. Why do you think that fundholders will be wanting to
> set contracts for dates at least a year after they no longer exist?
> Fundholding dies on 1/4/99 surely?
>
Oh dear. Oh dear.
GPFH software has fields for expected treatment dates for audit, in
this case specifically exception reports. This is a check to ensure
that we don't leave patients indefinitely on waiting lists and that
all patients are treated within 18 months. So, 1/10/98 is 18 months
from 1/1/2000. So don't put 18 months in the required field after
1/10/98.
GPFH continues until at *least* 1/4/99. There is a lot
of tidying up to do until 1/7/99 before the accounts can be closed.
As for GPFH dying 1/4/99...rubbish. All that has charged is the
terminology. Contracts are replaced by service agreements.
GPFH budgets are replaced by practice based budgets for all
hospital, community, prescribing and cash-limited GMS...for *all*
practices. The PCG's will decide if these are managed en-mass or at
the practice level. There is no 'bailing out' if you overspend as per
GPFH at present.
If you are a 'good' practice, will you be happy subsidising a 'bad'
practice?
Interesting times.
Dr David J Plews
------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|