Skip to main content

GP contract changes will undermine delivery of patient services, warns BMA


The government’s failure to listen to the concerns of thousands of family doctors about changes to the GP contract in England will undermine how patient services are delivered, the BMA warned today (Monday, 18 March 2013).

The warning came as the Department of Health confirmed a raft of changes to the GP contract in England that will come into force on 1 April 2013. The government’s proposals will see general practice facing a range of new targets and additional workload responsibilities, as well as reductions in the central funding that many practices receive.

These changes are being implemented despite thousands of GPs expressing concerns about the proposals in a BMA survey that was submitted, along with other evidence, to the government’s consultation on the changes1.

Dr Laurence Buckman, Chair of the BMA’s GP committee said:

“GPs are committed to working with patients and the government to deliver the highest quality of care to the public.

“However, ministers have completely failed to take on board the concerns of thousands of GPs about the cumulative impact of these proposals on general practice. Practices will face numerous new targets that will divert valuable clinical time and resources towards box ticking and administrative work.

“The decision to make changes to the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QoF) from 2014/15 and other funding areas will make it more difficult for practices to maintain services. This comes at a time when many practices are already struggling to cope under the pressure of rising workload and shrinking resources.

“A BMA survey that drew nearly 8,000 responses demonstrated that the impact of these changes would result in GPs considering reducing patient access and staffing hours.

“Last year, the BMA and NHS Employers came close to agreeing a tough, but fair package of changes that would have resulted in real improvements for patients. These talks were ended when the government decided to pull the plug and threaten to impose their own proposals. This has been followed by a total failure to listen to grassroots GPs during the recent consultation.

“It is unacceptable that the government has ignored this weight of opinion and ploughed ahead with so many ill thought out proposals that run the risk of destabilising patient care.”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba...
7 comments
Read more

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...
2 comments
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...
2 comments
Read more