This site is intended for health professionals only

New GP contract to stop ‘organisational’ rewards

23 October 2012

Share this article

The new proposed GP contract will look to end the practice of  rewarding GPs for “organisational” tasks.

Government changes to the GP contract aim to focus on providing better care for people with long-term conditions and preventing unnecessary admissions to hospital.

New measures added include: ensuring quality rewards for GPs reflect expert advice from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), making sure more patients benefit from best practice areas such as blood pressure and cholesterol.

Furthermore, rewards typically given for “organisational” tasks will be given for the quality of services that GPs offer patients instead.

The proposed changes to the GP contract have been sent to the British Medical Association (BMA) for consideration.

“Putting patients first is our priority and I make no apology for this,” said Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

This is a sponsored advert: Please read the information below
Cogora InRead Image
Discuss shared challenges with peers and discover opportunities that will help your business thrive
This is a sponsored advert: Please read the information above

“The GP contract needs to change so that it further improves care for patients.

“Our proposals will help ensure that we provide the very best care and support possible for those at most risk of life threatening conditions. We want to drive up standards for all and want the contract to reflect the most up-to-date expert guidance and excellent standards of care.

“We want the BMA to work with us on making this happen, but will not back away from making changes that will deliver better care for patients.”

Dr Laurence Buckman, chair of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, said doctors will be “angered and stunned” at the proposal changes to the GP contract.

“The implications of the government’s new proposals for general practice are likely to be huge, and we will be examining the consequences of this threatened imposition so that we can fully inform the profession and public as soon as possible,” he said.

“There are serious question marks over whether some of the intended changes are based on sound clinical evidence or are practical or feasible.”

Want news like this straight to your inbox?