Skip to main content

Rural GP practices under threat


Changes to the way GP practices are funded in England could threaten the future of at least 98 GP practices, including some that provide vital services to thousands of rural patients, GP leaders have warned today.

Last year the Government decided to begin phasing out the minimum practice income guarantee (MPIG) from April 2014. MPIG provides an important financial lifeline to many smaller GP practices by guaranteeing a minimum level of funding that is not dependent on the number of patients a GP practice has on its practice list.

NHS England have idenitified 98 GP practices that will lose substantial levels of funding that could place their long term survival in question. In addition to the 98, there are a significant number of other practices that will be severely affected. This is compounded by the Government's failure to put in place a national plan to help support the practices affected.

Dr Chaand Nagpaul, Chair of the BMA’s GP committee said:

“The government has seriously misjudged the potential impact of its funding changes, especially on rural GP services. It is likely that a few hundred practices will lose noticeable levels of funding, with 98 practices identified by NHS England as being at serious risk from severe cuts in their financial support that could threaten their ability to remain open. This comes at a time when GP practices are already under pressure from rising workload and declines in overall levels of funding.

“The government has not confirmed where these practices are or the extent of their financial difficulty, however some will be smaller GP practices in rural communities with comparatively small number of patients registered with them. These GPs provide vital services to patients in areas where accessing healthcare is already not easy because of the large distances patients have to travel to get to their local NHS services. If these practices were to close it could leave large geographical areas without a nearby GP practice.

“The situation has not been helped by NHS England’s decision to devolve responsibility for this issue to local NHS managers without a framework on how these GP practices should be supported. We are without a national plan of how to tackle this problem and safeguard GP services.

“Ministers have to get a grip on this problem urgently given these funding reductions are just weeks away from being implemented. We need to ensure no practice closes and that there is a coordinated approach to deal with this issue.”

One of the GP practices that is concerned about these changes is a Cumbrian practice run by Dr Katharina Frey.

Dr Frey said:

“My practice is a very small one that cares for just under 1,000 patients in a rural South Cumbrian area. We have for many years provided a real family orientated service for patients and I believe we are a really vital service for our local community.

“We are under real financial pressure already and cant, because of the current funding climate, afford to employ a practice nurse. We are also having to think very carefully about how we replace senior staff. This situation will become even more pressurised when we lose the MPIG support that currently accounts for our around a third of our current core funding. We are already working at full capacity with declining resources: I just don’t know how we will cope with this additional financial blow.”

 

Read Ray'a Novel: It wasn't always late summer 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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