Disgruntled Ian asked:
>All fine and dandy so far. We, and others, however have a problem.
>We are a low prescribing cost practice (18% below local average) but did
not go
>into fundholding. Our budget was calculated historically on the basis of
>existing costs when IPA was introduced several years ago. We are aware that
our
>colleagues who went into fundholding had a generous recalculation of their
>budgets (to avoid any political embarrassment) and so are able to make
>substantial savings on their budgets ( 10's of thousands of pounds per
annum).
Apols for being thick here but in todays non FH environment does it matter?
Is there a prescribing incentive scheme do they get any *money* for coming
in under their bloated budgets??
>We however are stuck with our measly historical budget Which I calculate to
be
>at least £70,000 p.a. underfunded! (3 GP practice). There is some
recognition of
>the problem but no will to correct it. The prescribing adviser is visiting
soon
>and I suspect will offer some pitiful increase to appease us.
Surely you must be pushing for full capitation based budget. Maybe a year of
half capitation/half previous then full capitation whatever measure it is
based on? (ASTRO PUs and FF (fiddle factor))
>I suspect most of those making the running in PCGs/ LHCCs are either
>ex-fundholders or high prescribers who will do very nicely at the expense
of
>those of us who are quietly (and ? naively) doing as we are asked.
Mmm interesting in our neck of the woods almost all the PCGs docs are ex FHs
and one dispensing doc! Still 2 short though. :-)) As for your last comment
"quietly (and ? naively) doing as we are asked" unsure about that. There are
as many anti PCG FHs outside the PCG committee waiting to create mayhem
within the rules of course! ;-))
Please note nary an innuendo nor risqué phrase (sorry Ahmad). Come back KT
all is forgiven??
Poetry is allowed no?
Paul Attwood
(There was a young man from Kent)
GP Ramsgate, Kent
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|