« Well, That Settles It Then | Main | One Rule For Them... »

February 02, 2007

They're Independent, Dimwit

Hewitless is at it again:

"The other reason is because they have increased somewhat the element of profit that they are taking from the contract. Because they are not salaried, these doctors, they are running their own businesses, and they take profits from them. And there is an issue there which we are discussing with the BMA to ensure that doctors go on re-investing in the service as much as we and the public would expect them to."

that's the point, they're independent. You get to negotiate (however badly) the external bits and pieces: work to be done in return for such and such compensation to the business.  You don't get to decide how the money is allocated internally. That's what an independent business means.

February 2, 2007 in Health Care | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d8351543e969e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference They're Independent, Dimwit:

Comments

Amazing.

Last year was the NHS' "best year ever" and this year Hewitt starts advertising the fact that the government completely fouled up the GP contracts.

For the umpteenth time, Nulab are not "investing" in the health service. They've just given GPs a bumper 30% pay rise over a couple of years and that is the end of that, the money's gone.

Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | Feb 2, 2007 12:33:20 PM

Alarm bells ringing here.

They are trying to do to the Doctors exactly the same as they have already done to IT contractors with the IR35 regulations.

Under IR35 the taxman decides how much of the income coming into your limited company is business expense, can be allocated to the business and other disbursements, and how much is considered personal income and is taxed as such.

Warning bells!!!

Posted by: IanP | Feb 2, 2007 2:15:19 PM

Thye're only half-independent. They are independent in the areas where it favours them and are part of the public sector when it favours them. Best of both world's if you're a GP, worse of both world's if you're a taxpayer.

They can participate in the NHS index-linked final salary pension scheme for example. They don't have to bid competitively for contracts and compete on price and quality (when did you ever hear of a GP surgery losing its NHS contract?). So there is a case for the government regulating profits in the public interest. However, in my opinion, there's an even better case for deregulation, competition and payment coming from the user. That would shake them up a bit and ensure value for money.

Posted by: HJHJ | Feb 2, 2007 6:51:08 PM

It would, I suspect, be illegal to refer to her as a clueless auld biddy, which is why I won't.

Posted by: dearieme | Feb 2, 2007 8:15:31 PM