Skip to main content

Primary care in England: an era of austerity

General practitioners (GPs) in England are currently facing perhaps their most challenging financial circumstances since the NHS was founded in 1948. In an editorial published in the British Journal of General Practice, I discuss these the very difficult financial environment that general practitioners find themselves in. GPs will find themselves caught between the priorities of clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and the NHS Commissioning Board; with CCGs requiring ever greater efficiencies in the use of secondary care services; and the NHS Commissioning Board demanding more ‘value for money’ from general practice contracts.

A strong primary care sector has allowed the NHS to make efficient use of resources, through the gatekeeping role that GPs have in controlling access to specialist services, and through the wide range of medical, social, and psychological problems that GPs and their teams manage through a mix of person-based and population-centred care. The impact of cuts in primary care spending on health inequities will be particularly important to monitor as increased resources for primary care preferentially improve health status and access to health care in more socially disadvantaged populations.

The NHS has always prided itself on the access to care it has given to the most socioeconomically deprived groups of the population, and this is a focus it should continue to retain even in the current, very difficult, financial circumstances that the NHS is experiencing.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...

Talking to Patients About Weight-Loss Drugs

The use of weight-loss drugs such as GLP-1 receptor agonists (e.g., semaglutide, tirzepatide) has increased rapidly in recent years. These drugs can help some people achieve significant weight reduction, but they are not suitable for everyone and require careful counselling before starting treatment. By discussing benefits, risks, practicalities, and  uncertainties, clinicians can help patients make informed, realistic decisions about their treatment. Key points to discuss with patients 1. Indications and eligibility These drugs are usually licensed for adults with a specific BMI. They should be used alongside lifestyle interventions such as dietary change, increased physical activity, and behaviour modification. 2. Potential side effects – some can be serious Common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal discomfort. Less common but more serious risks include gallstones, pancreatitis and visual problems. Patients should know what to watch for a...

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...