Skip to main content

Arguments in Favour of an Independent Contractor Model of General Practice

I have written an article on why GPs should consider giving up their independent contractor status and become NHS employees, which was published in Pulse. In this blog post, I will make the opposing argument and will list reasons why we should retain the current independent contractor model of general practice. This will be helpful for those GPs who are against the proposal that we should become NHS employees but who are unable to put together a coherent or logical counter-argument. If anyone has further arguments in favour of the independent contractor model, please let me know and I will add them to the list.

1- The independent contractor model is very efficient. For between 8-10% of NHS spending, general practices deal with up to 90% of patient contacts in the NHS.

2- Because GPs are not NHS employees, they have more freedom to act as patient advocates and to speak up about deficiencies in the NHS.

3- The independent contractor model gives GPs a stake in their practices and encourages them to take a long-term view about the services they provide and to build links with the local community.

4- The independent contractor model encourages continuity of care. Salaried GPs would work shifts and be less interested and capable of providing continuity of care.

5- General practices can operate very flexibly under their current model and respond quickly to changes in national NHS policy, or to local needs and priorities.

6- GPs have freedom as to where they refer their patients. If employed in integrated care organisations that encouraged vertical integration of services, there would be much more limited options available for referrals to specialists.

7- The independent contractor model has encouraged innovation in the delivery of care and the use of information technology. One example of this is the universal use of electronic health records in primary care, in contrast to other settings where paper records often remain the norm.

8- Most GP Principals are very hard working and work well in excess of the hours worked by salaried NHS staff. They also undertake a much wider range of tasks than salaried NHS staff.

9- Replacing the independent contractor model with a salaried GP service is likely to end up costing the NHS more, as salaried NHS GPs would work shorter hours, be entitled to employers' pension contributions, and benefits such as maternity pay, sick leave, holidays, and study leave.

10- GP Principals are less likely to take sick leave than salaried NHS employees.

11- Replacing GP Principals with salaried GPs would make general practice less attractive as a career for medical graduates.

12- Many practices operate out of premises they own. Buying them out of their current premises or moving them to NHS premises would be prohibitively expensive for the NHS.

13- Relocating patients to new NHS premises would be inconvenient for patients, particularly those that may have difficulty in travelling such as the elderly and families with young children.

14- GPs current freedom to practise medicine and run their practices as they feel is most appropriate would be replaced by control by NHS managers thus creating a much more rigid and inflexible model of healthcare delivery.

15- Salaried GPs would be paid substantially less than GP Principals, particularly if employed by commercial organisations rather than the NHS.

16- It's not the independent contractor model that's 'broken' but rather the funding model. We need a fairer method of funding primary care that gives GPs adequate resources to do their job well. See my recent JRSM editorial.

17- A fairer funding model for general practices would also help to ensure that sufficient staff are employed in primary care to meet patients' needs for care, and that patients are treated in community settings whenever possible, thus reducing demands on emergency departments, hospital outpatients, and emergency inpatient care.

You can also read the opposing argument on this blog. See also my JRSM editorial: General practice in the United Kingdom: meeting the challenges of the early 21st century. Another article  by me on the challenges facing NHS GPs in England was published in the London Journal of Primary Care in September 2015.The BMJ also published a 'Head to Head' debate article on this topic in October 2016.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Protecting Against the "Quad-demic": Influenza, Covid-19, Norovirus and RSV

As the NHS braces for a challenging winter season, it is grappling with a "quad-demic" of health emergencies caused by influenza, Covid-19, norovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). This confluence of viral threats poses a significant risk to public health in the UK as well as putting strain on healthcare resources, emphasising the importance of preventive measures to safeguard public health. Public health measures such a vaccination and good personal hygiene are pivotal in reducing the impact of these illnesses, particularly for vulnerable groups. The Four Viruses: What Are They? Influenza: A highly contagious respiratory infection that causes significant illness each winter. It can lead to severe complications, particularly in the elderly, young children, pregnant women, and those with chronic health conditions. Covid-19: Though its most acute phase has passed, Covid-19 remains a concern, especially as new variants of SA...

The Hidden Cost of Cheaper NHS Contracts: Losing Community Trust

NHS budgets are under considerable pressure. It is therefore unsurprising that many NHS Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) In England will aim to prioritise price in contract awards, But this approach is a significant threat to community-centred healthcare. While competitive tendering is a legally required, an excessive focus on costs in awarding NHS contracts risks overshadowing key factors such as established community trust, local expertise, and the long-term impact on continuity of care. This shift towards cheaper, often external, commercial providers threatens to cut the links between communities and their local health services. The argument that competitive tendering is solely about legal compliance, and not cost, is undermined by the very nature of such tendering, which by design encourages the lowest bid. This approach risks eroding the social fabric of local healthcare provision, where established relationships and understanding of specific community needs are essential. Establishe...

MPH Student Presentations on the NHS Care.Data Programme

As part of a session on primary care data in the Health Informatics module on the Imperial Master of Public Health Programme, I asked students to work in two groups to present arguments for and against the NHS Care.Data programme. Care.Data is an NHS programme that will extract data from the medical records held by general practitioners (GPs) in England. The Care.Data programme takes advantage of the very high level of use of electronic medical records by GPs in England. After extraction, data will be uploaded to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The data will then be used for functions such as health care planning, monitoring disease patterns and research. The programme has been controversial with proponents arguing that the programme will bring many benefits for the NHS and the population of England; and opponents arguing it is a major breach of privacy. You can view the two presentations to help inform you further about these arguments: Arguments fo...