Skip to main content

How do the costs charged by private GPs compare to NHS general practice?

As I was returning home via my local tube station, I was handed a flyer for a newly established private general practice. I live in a relatively affluent part of London so there may well be demand for private primary care services, particularly as many local NHS general practices are under considerable workload and funding pressures, and are struggling to meet demand. The new private general practice offers individual insurance plans that start ‘from’ £35 per month (£420 per year). For patients without insurance, a one-off 20 minute consultation is £110 and an ECG is £95. A private prescription (excluding cost of medication) is £15. I compared this to my own practice where the entire sum we receive annually for each patient on our list is about £120 (this includes the annual capitation fee plus various other payments such as reimbursement of costs of premises). The average payment per patient to general practices in England is around £136 annually. It made me realise what good value for money our existing NHS services are. Jeremy Hunt may criticise doctors but the bottom line is that we are already providing cost-effective care. There is always more we can do to improve the quality and efficiency of the health services we provide but this requires a collaborative approach between the government and doctors, rather than the very adversarial approach we have seen from the government in recent years.

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...

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...

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...