On 21/01/07, Fay Wilson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> We don't at the moment want Pat to feel that earnings are none of her
> business as we are asking the DDRB to pronounce on GP earnings!

Matters are not as clear cut as I was suggesting, since the Government
provide a pension scheme based on individual partners' shares of their
profits.

> I think what Mike means is that it is not the government's business what
> proportion of income is taken as profit.

My gist was indeed a horse of that colour.  :-)

There was a clear shift in emphasis with the new contract. Intended
net remuneration went out of the window along with all the fine tuning
that helped to maintain it, such as staff reimbursement. All the talk
was of contracts, performers, services, LES DES KES and JES, and
bonuses for performance. Now that most GPs are doing rather better, as
was widely predicted at the time, the Government have sudden taken a
new interest in defining what our net remuneration should be.

Like Bill, I suspect that if they cap our net income then practices
will simply stop providing extra services, as there will be no
incentive to do so.

I think that reverting to the DDRB is a backward step. We should be
insisting on inflation-linked rise in global sums, and no additions to
QOF without more points. One of the key benefits of the new contract
was "no new work without new money". Unless we take a firm line on
that, we will find ourselves working harder and harder to prevent our
income falling.

I'm sure the GPC are well aware of all this, but fear that GPs would
not back them up with industrial action. I wonder if we would. There
seems to be more scope at present to upset Government plans without
harming patients.

-- 
Michael Leuty
Nottingham, UK