General Practioners, and there's quite a few of them, now earn an average of £100,000 per annum. Well deserved most probably but bear in mind this represents an increase of £30,000 in the first two years of the new contract. A contract that does not require drop-in clinics, home visits, emergency care or a maximum doctor-to-patient ratio. By comparison, the average salary of a hospital registrar is less than £40,000 a year.
In the past, Gordon is Moron and the Vile Master Criminal have reserved these kinds of super-inflationary rises for those involved in their quango empire as I have previously discussed. The current deal rewards General Practitioners with bonuses for hitting targets such as testing blood pressure and asthma care.
Does this push GPs to focus on point scoring instead of individually tailoring care? Many doctors, academics and the British Medical Journal think so.
Under the deal, which started in 2004, almost 35% of GP income is linked to hitting targets under the quality and outcomes framework (QOF). The rest of their pay is made up of the "global sum", which is effectively a basic salary. Statistics show that GPs have been particularly successful in hitting the targets in the last year. No surprise there ... if you measure people in a particular way, they will adjust their behaviour accordingly.
Experts, led by Dr Iona Heath, a GP at London's Caversham Group Practice, said "the targets had diminished the responsibility of doctors to think". Instead, they said, GPs were "encouraged to focus on points scored, thresholds met and income generated to the detriment of patients".
They said three quarters of the population do not have the diseases covered by the contract and it was too focused on treatments rather than outcomes. Until the increase in process is translated into tangible outcomes, such as diabetes complication rates or incidence of heart attack or smoking-related deaths, the benefits and cost-effectiveness of the exercise cannot be established.
They also said the most "socially-disadvantaged people are at risk of receiving proportionally less attention". The authors pointed out that the contract acted as a disincentive to work in the most deprived areas as people there tended to be sicker and it was therefore harder to hit the targets.
One of this government's manifesto chapter headlines was "Our NHS: Free to all, personal to each". The facts show that our NHS is costing us all more and is less personal than ever before. The management overhead has grown beyond heteromorphic and all we have to show for it is impersonal care, veterans dying on dirty wards and worthless Chief Executives of failing NHS Trusts receiving astronomic pay-offs in return for dishonorable failure!
Bastards ... slimy bastard all over the world!
In the past, Gordon is Moron and the Vile Master Criminal have reserved these kinds of super-inflationary rises for those involved in their quango empire as I have previously discussed. The current deal rewards General Practitioners with bonuses for hitting targets such as testing blood pressure and asthma care.
Does this push GPs to focus on point scoring instead of individually tailoring care? Many doctors, academics and the British Medical Journal think so.
Under the deal, which started in 2004, almost 35% of GP income is linked to hitting targets under the quality and outcomes framework (QOF). The rest of their pay is made up of the "global sum", which is effectively a basic salary. Statistics show that GPs have been particularly successful in hitting the targets in the last year. No surprise there ... if you measure people in a particular way, they will adjust their behaviour accordingly.
Experts, led by Dr Iona Heath, a GP at London's Caversham Group Practice, said "the targets had diminished the responsibility of doctors to think". Instead, they said, GPs were "encouraged to focus on points scored, thresholds met and income generated to the detriment of patients".
They said three quarters of the population do not have the diseases covered by the contract and it was too focused on treatments rather than outcomes. Until the increase in process is translated into tangible outcomes, such as diabetes complication rates or incidence of heart attack or smoking-related deaths, the benefits and cost-effectiveness of the exercise cannot be established.
They also said the most "socially-disadvantaged people are at risk of receiving proportionally less attention". The authors pointed out that the contract acted as a disincentive to work in the most deprived areas as people there tended to be sicker and it was therefore harder to hit the targets.
One of this government's manifesto chapter headlines was "Our NHS: Free to all, personal to each". The facts show that our NHS is costing us all more and is less personal than ever before. The management overhead has grown beyond heteromorphic and all we have to show for it is impersonal care, veterans dying on dirty wards and worthless Chief Executives of failing NHS Trusts receiving astronomic pay-offs in return for dishonorable failure!
Bastards ... slimy bastard all over the world!
Posts
