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

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...

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...

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care.  Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful.  This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...