There’s good reason to do this

A scheme that discriminates against healthy people by axing patients from surgery lists if they have not visited their GP for five years will harm safety, campaigners have warned.

People do move about and not everyone is scrupulous about making they inform their GP that they have done so. Me for example.

And GPs are paid on the length of their list. Thus some rules to purge the lists is a good thing.

Wouldn’t surprise me at all if the lists were a little longer than the population of the country….

25 thoughts on “There’s good reason to do this”

  1. Given the difficulty in joining a surgery list, I don’t agree. I had no reason to visit my GP for over 25 years, and only decided on a routine health check once I had reached 50. Maybe an email or letter should be sent if you haven’t visited in say 5 years, to ask if you still want to be on the list

  2. “Maybe an email or letter should be sent if you haven’t visited in say 5 years, to ask if you still want to be on the list”
    The article says they’ll be sent two letters and only cut if there is no answer.

  3. GPs are paid on the length of their list? Seriously?

    We know health varies massively across the country: people in e.g. Kensington are in the best health, those in Glasgow are worst. So a GP in a healthy area has a long list, full of patients they only see once in a blue moon; whereas a GP in a poor area has fewer patients but spends more time with each one. It doesn’t make sense to pay them on the number of registered patients.

    Besides, if GPs were genuinely paid on the length of their lists, they wouldn’t be refusing new sign-ups. They’d register new patients but make them wait weeks for an actual appointment. The more enterprising GPs would actively advertise for healthy patients to register with them: perhaps by advertising at fitness clubs.

    Since that isn’t happening, either GPs aren’t actually paid on the length of their lists; or it’s only a trivial part of their income.

  4. I( sneeze in threes: Maybe because then they’d treat everyone totally unnecessarily, for things they haven’t actually got?

  5. The Meissen Bison

    From memory list payment is £20 per capita pa

    I heard it was £100 on R4 Today Prog earlier.

  6. Andrew M said:
    “GPs are paid on the length of their list? Seriously?”

    Aren’t there a whole lot of factors that make up the payment to the GPs’ business, only one of which is the number of patients?

  7. For 2016/17, the per capita payment will be £80.59 per year (according to the published ready reckoner):

    Global Sum payments, which are increasing a result of resources from the above funding streams being reinvested into Global Sum payments plus an uplift following recommendations from DDRB. The increase is from £76.51 in the second 6 months of 2015/16 to £80.59 from 1 April 2016.

  8. It’s a good idea in principle.

    However, they’ve invited Capita to do the work…

    Public sector + Capita = outcomes I don’t like.

    There needs to be a robust safety net to deal promptly with the screw-ups that result from this.

    Using the electoral register would make sense to me. Foreign nationals should get insurance (as we should soon leave the EU, no issues there). Adults should register their kids. Too easy?

  9. “Using the electoral register would make sense to me. Foreign nationals should get insurance (as we should soon leave the EU, no issues there). Adults should register their kids. Too easy?”

    I meant this as an alternative to keeping a separate database for the NHS, not as a way of dealing with the screw-ups from the letter-writing.

  10. I’ll confess to not telling my GP I was leaving on my last but one move so I assume that the new owners will get a couple of letters in 3 years or so. No such problems with my last move as I never registered with a local GP.

    Clearing a list of those of who’ve moved away or died has to be done somehow so, assuming that the letters are understandable, I’m not sure why the whining about moves to do so.

  11. Public sector + Capita = outcomes I don’t like.

    Better than Atos. Mind you, with the rep Atos have in the medical sector, even Hunt wouldn’t want another disaster of PIP proportions.

  12. As others have said, this is flawed: if Crapita send me a letter, it has a very good chance of ending up in the recycling unread. Why would we give that organisation even more information about people.

  13. Just another way to give men even more second class treatment on the NHS. Men don’t go to the doctor as much as women, men are therefore more likely to get chopped from the doctors lists and therefore miss out on screening and health check services. If it affected women disproportionately there would be screams of discrimination from the usual suspects, men, well they can just go off and die somewhere, who gives a fuck about their health?

  14. “decided on a routine health check once I had reached 50”: the evidence suggests that ‘routine health checks’ – such as are beloved of our American cousins – are a waste of money.

  15. I sneeze in threes,

    > why not only pay them for actually treating the sick?

    It’s the principal-agent problem; more specifically a problem of supplier-induced demand. The GP would diagnose you with every problem under the sun and tell you to come back every fortnight for checkups, while sending the bill to the taxpayer.

    The US system is like this, only with the bill going to the insurance companies. Hence why the average American is taking at least two prescription drugs at any time.

  16. “Most of the ills that we poor mortals know
    From doctors and too-close inspection flow”

    Written by, if memory serves, some 16th-century English poet.

    And, with the exception of two cataract surgeries–10 years apart–it’s been my guiding (health) principle for over 50 years. (And prolly saves more than the cost of the 2 packs of Camels I smoke each day just to keep the airways clear!)

  17. @ dearieme
    Not totally a waste of money but probably not cost-effective for the NHS – because the hypochondriacs won’t believe them. Mostly they reassure the wives of the 65-year-olds who are prodded to attend them when they are hanging around the house in the way of the vacuum-cleaner. Mine sent me ‘cos she reckoned my liver would be dodgy if not wrecked: *no problems* on the liver but (like – as I later discovered – a majority) higher-than-NHS-desires cholestrol. So I was recommended to eat soya (ugh!) or hot-cross-buns: now I am allowed to bake cakes but not eat them!.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *