Skip to main content

Funding for GP services for people living in care homes

The Chief Inspector of Primary Care, Dr Steve Field, has criticised GPs for charging ‘retainer’ fees for treating patients in care homes. Perhaps Dr Field is unaware that the current funding mechanism for general practice does not reflect the needs of patients with complex health problems such as those patients living in care homes? The current capitation-based payment is insufficient to fund the level of primary care support these patients need from primary care teams and should be supplemented by need-based funding. The GMS weighted capitation formula used to allocate resources to general practices is a blunt instrument and does not work well for the small groups of patients with complex health needs. For these groups of patients, needs-based funding mechanisms are more appropriate.

Patients living in care homes have complex health problems that require significant input from GPs and community staff, as well as skilled care from the nurses who work in care homes. Residents of care home are potentially high users of hospital care as well as having very high prescribing costs, and additional investment in primary care and community services can be highly cost-effective, as well as improving the care these patients receive and their quality of life. Some PCTs introduced local enhanced services (LES) for care home patients to recognise the significant input from GPs needed by care home residents. These schemes have often been continued by CCGs. The extra funding from an appropriately funded LES or other funding mechanisms is essential if patients living in care homes are to receive the level of support from the NHS they need.

Comments

Anonymous said…
From Prof Steve Field, the Pulse report was no a fair reflection of what I said in the CQC board meeting. I know that some PCTs did and Area Teams are looking at enhanced service payments to help GP who have to look after some care homes, these are locally negotiated above GMS, my point remains that this extra funding is above and beyond GMS. I fully understand the system, it is just that we have heard reports of GPs charging for what are GMS service and according to some national bodies representing care homes, GPs have even refused to register some patients in care home if they do not receive addition funds from the care home.
3:59 pm
Professor Azeem Majeed said…
This comment reinforces my argument that patient with complex health need - such as those living in care homes - are taken out of standard GMS and funded through a separate needs-based mechanism.
4:52 pm
Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

UK Covid-19 Inquiry - The Importance of a Strong Primary Healthcare System

In my witness statement for Module 10 of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, I discuss the pandemic's impact through from the perspectives of  primary care and public health, drawing on my extensive experience as a senior academic at Imperial College London and as a practising GP and NHS Public Health Specialist.  I emphasise that the pandemic disproportionately affected people who were clinically vulnerable, the disabled, ethnic minority communities and those living in deprived areas. The pandemic highlighted how structural inequalities, multigenerational housing, and employment in high-risk frontline roles exacerbated health disparities.  My statement also critiques the weakening of public health infrastructure - particularly for the control of infectious diseases - and the lack of integrated health data systems to identify at-risk groups such as the clinically vulnerable. I also advocated for a more robust preventive healthcare model that prioritises community-based primary care ...
1 comment
Read more