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

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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As