[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> > >I'm cetainly not happy pooling my practices resources with another
> > >that 'consumes' 50% more with the same 'need'.
> > >
> > -----------------------------
> > Sorry, missed my (rather radical) point.
> > I don't see us pooling resources with other practices, I see us
> > becoming single partnerships per PCG.
> >
> > There have always been arguments between partners about how one
> > spends money on the patient services which another might keep
> > and divide among the partners, but they prove easier to resolve
> > in a single org than among several.
> >
> > The practice consuming 50% more would say that this is because they
> > are doing more work, more good, and that you have not observed the
> > unmet needs. One of you might be right, I suppose, but equally the
> > patients you have may be different. Equal shares, one for all,
> > all for one and pay the doctors' salaries off a topslice of the PCG
> > budget.
> > --- OffRoad 1.9r registered to Adrian Midgley
> >
> Utopia???
> Yes I agree that this sounds good, but what about cost-rents, etc?
>
> A little dickie-birdie has told me that the NHSE has a 'committee'
> looking at how to buy out GPs from cost-rent/notional rent so that we
> can all be salaried and end independant contractor status. I wonder
> where they will get the money from??
>
> Dr David J Plews
> ------------------------
I think the whole white paper is an elaborate plot to get us all to be
salaried and also directly responsible for the shortages
Yomi
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|