GPs fail to engage over new contracts
In response to the suggestion by Dr Alan McDevitt that The Oban Times coverage on March 22 of patients’ concerns regarding the new GP contract is ‘alarmist’, he confidently cites public engagement about the new contract.
These were general qualitative surveys about health and social care, asking open ended questions (see Creating a Healthier Scotland and Our Voice Citizens Panel Third Survey) and were not specific to the new GP contract.
The Alliance Scotland was commissioned to deliver events informing people about the new contract after the contract had been agreed and a mere three months prior to implementation.
The majority of these events were put on in cities, but after patient pressure from rural areas, they helpfully devised facilitation packs and put extra events on to enable people in remote areas to engage.
In answer to his statement that there was ‘strong support’ from GPs in a poll, I would draw attention to the fact that only 39 per cent of GPs voted, demonstrating a lack of engagement from the profession on the issue. I can understand why Dr McDevitt would not want to be completely open about this.
In relation to funding, it is unfortunate that Dr McDevitt chooses to ignore the complexity of funding for rural practices.
The core funding may well stay the same for all practices, but the changes could affect local enhanced service funding, which will destabilise rural and remote practices and place them at risk.
This is a question of simple accounting and should have been addressed prior to implementation. The continuing rhetoric that no practice will lose funding is not guaranteed beyond phase one and at no time has this been guaranteed for phase two.
The promise of a Rural Short Life Working Group is welcome and acknowledges there are major problems to be reconciled. It is hoped that this is convened quickly and that there is strong representation from rural GPs and rural patients as this has not been made clear.
One of the most immediate issues to be addressed by the group is the controversial Workload Allocation Formula, designed by the London firm Deloitte.
The contract will work very well in urban areas and Dr McDevitt is right to point out the positives for these areas, but it is disingenuous to try to present it as a one-size-fits-all good news story.
People affected in rural and remote areas need to be informed of the risks to their medical cover and involved in finding urgent solutions.
Given the lack of transparency in this matter so far, it is fortunate that we live in a time where it is relatively simple to research, draw conclusions for ourselves and communicate so easily with others. Karen Murphy, by email.