Skip to main content

Is it time to rethink the independent contractor status of GPs

Is it time to rethink the independent contractor status of GPs in areas of the UK where general practice is struggling? Mixing funding for patient services with funding for GP remuneration can lead to government reluctance to invest more in primary care for fear that money intended for service improvement will end up boosting GPs’ incomes. As practices close, it becomes clear that an individual practice is often too small a unit to carry the risk of unpredictable financial burdens such as maternity or sick leave. Ultimately, patients suffer, particularly in inner city or rural practices that receive little financial allowance for deprivation within current funding arrangements, and it is unlikely that a new “fairer funding formula” will rectify this.

The knock-on effects of the funding shortfall in these struggling practices are seen in the difficulties they have in recruiting GPs. Young doctors want clear job plans, career progression, time for management and clinical leadership, and guaranteed employment rights. These aspirations can be made real only by developing NHS primary care provider organisations that employ GPs and practice staff on mandatory NHS contracts. We need to act before NHS general practice becomes non-viable as it risks doing so in many parts of the UK. Placing GPs and their primary care teams on NHS contracts won't be a cheap option but it may be needed to 'rescue' general practice in the parts of the country where it is currently struggling to meet patient needs and expectations.

A version of this blog was first published in the BMJ.

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...