NHS GPs are greedy overpaid pigs

[JHE]

...the need to stuff the mouths of GPs with gold.

As I expect you know, the image of stuffing mouths with gold comes from Nye Bevan. When asked how he finally overcame the consultants' objections (not GPs' objections) and persuaded them to come on board, he (allegedly) replied, "I stuffed their mouths with gold."

 

[Dubversion]

isn't this something that needs to be seen in the broader picture. The debate about what these figures really represent (net, gross etc) notwithstanding, surely the whole culture of people getting paid this much is at fault, not specifically GPs. When you've got all manner of people - state and private - earning huge salaries, GPs don't seem so outrageous in that context.

 

[Fullyplumped]

As I expect you know, the image of stuffing mouths with gold comes from Nye Bevan. When asked how he finally overcame the consultants' objections (not GPs' objections) and persuaded them to come on board, he (allegedly) replied, "I stuffed their mouths with gold."

GPWM. And now the GPs are experiencing this process. And the taxpayer is getting stuffed as well, though in a different way.

 

[Fullyplumped]

isn't this something that needs to be seen in the broader picture. The debate about what these figures really represent (net, gross etc) notwithstanding, surely the whole culture of people getting paid this much is at fault, not specifically GPs. When you've got all manner of people - state and private - earning huge salaries, GPs don't seem so outrageous in that context.

Yes they do. Stuff the broader picture. The point is that their greed is ruining the impact of the huge incerease of spending on the NHS.

 

[Azrael23]

Their pay is perhaps slightly inflated but as already mentioned they have various costs to cover and whilst tuition fees weren`t around Drs still have a big fat student loan to pay off.
The pay also has to be high in order to attracts Drs from abroad.


I`m a lot more worried about the way in which GPs don`t have enough time to spend with their patients to build up the personal knowledge that is essential to a good diagnosis. GPs are becoming more and more like pharmacists everyday, a lot of the time they`ve started writing the prescription before you`ve finished speaking.

 

[FiFi]

What sort of targets?

Most theraputic activies have been given a relative "weighting" and points awarded.

It is quite complicated but as an example, if a GP sends a patient with diabetes for an eye test and records it on his computor system it is given a code. All patients with this code are added up at the end of the financial year, and if 40, 70 or even 90% of all diabetic patients are recorded then a certain no. of "points" are awarded.
If the practice achieve all the points they aspired to, a bonus is added to the global sum they are paid.

Most disease areas are broken down into activities like this. The more clinically important a disease area the more theraputic activities and so the more points that can be obtained.

Not all doctors wanted this system, and many are still argueing against it, but it was intended to ensure that a)GP's are rewarded for what they do, and b) care for patients is more standardised and less of a postcode lottery.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Their pay is perhaps slightly inflated but as already mentioned they have various costs to cover and whilst tuition fees weren`t around Drs still have a big fat student loan to pay off.
The pay also has to be high in order to attracts Drs from abroad.


I`m a lot more worried about the way in which GPs don`t have enough time to spend with their patients to build up the personal knowledge that is essential to a good diagnosis. GPs are becoming more and more like pharmacists everyday, a lot of the time they`ve started writing the prescription before you`ve finished speaking.

A pay hike from £70k to £130k in three years is more than slightly inflated!

Most GPs aged 35 and over didn't have to have loans or tuition fees. Anyway they can pay off their loans in a few weeks at that salary level.

Why do we need to attract GPs from abroad?

If we want GPs to have more time for patients, make them work longer hours, and train five times as many so there's more of them, and pay them less. There's no shortage of kids with good exam results who'd fit in fine to medic courses.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Most theraputic activies have been given a relative "weighting" and points awarded. It is quite complicated but as an example, if a GP sends a patient with diabetes for an eye test and records it on his computor system it is given a code. All patients with this code are added up at the end of the financial year, and if 40, 70 or even 90% of all diabetic patients are recorded then a certain no. of "points" are awarded. f the practice achieve all the points they aspired to, a bonus is added to the global sum they are paid.

Data entry! Sounds like money for old rope.

 

[WouldBe]

This is about the greed of the GPs.

I see from the article you have ignored the fact that the payrise was imposed on the GP's. They didn't ask for a rise they were given one.

The way I understand it happened was the GP's contract was re-written. Presumably if the GP's had not agreed to the new contract they would have been out of a job.

Earlier you said that it would take 4 years to vote out the government. It takes at least 5 years to train a doctor and then if they want to work for the NHS they have to sign the contract which would put them on the same pay as existing GP's are on.

 

[Fullyplumped]

I see from the article you have ignored the fact that the payrise was imposed on the GP's. They didn't ask for a rise they were given one.

The poor darlings could have said "No - £70,000 is fair enough for a full time job. Put the extra money into better pay for other NHS staff and better health services". They didn't say that, did they?

 

[WouldBe]

The poor darlings could have said "No - £70,000 is fair enough for a full time job. Put the extra money into better pay for other NHS staff and better health services". They didn't say that, did they?

Were they given a choice?

As I understand it it was 'here is your new contact. Sign it or on yer bike'.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Were they given a choice? As I understand it it was 'here is your new contact. Sign it or on yer bike'.

I'm not sure why you're using the icon!

The GPs are not some powerless group of economic victims being dragged unwillingly into a world of wealth and luxury against their will. They have the power to effectively privatise themselves just as the NHS dentists are doing. They took advantage of the fact that the Labour government has increased NHS funding and said "we're having some (most) of that."

I think the Government should have called their bluff, but then the Government has lost that argument with the dentists and might well have lost it with the GPs.

I've suggested a solution to the problem, already.

 

[FiFi]

Data entry! Sounds like money for old rope.

Erm, data entry is only one part of it.
The job has to be done first!







(Or maybe you willfully mis-understood)

 

[Fullyplumped]

Erm, data entry is only one part of it. The job has to be done first!(Or maybe you willfully mis-understood)

Welll if I misunderstood It wasn't wilful. The trivial point is that they're just doctors and they shouldn't get extra for difficult doctoring, and certainly not for record keeping. Pay them the same as, and in the same way as, school teachers.

 

[WouldBe]

They have the power to effectively privatise themselves just as the NHS dentists are doing.

Can they

The trivial point is that they're just doctors and they shouldn't get extra for difficult doctoring

Not all services provided by a GP cost the same amount. It doesn't cost the same to simply write a prescription as it does to provide extensive physiotherapy which a lot of GP's surgeries now have in house. So why should they be paid the same for providing totally different services?

 

[Fullyplumped]

Can they

GPs have the power to effectively privatise themselves just as the NHS dentists are doing. If GPs wanted to self-privatise, they would end their contractual relationship with the NHS. They would probably contract with insurance companies who would very quickly import the HMO model from the USA.

Not all services provided by a GP cost the same amount. It doesn't cost the same to simply write a prescription as it does to provide extensive physiotherapy which a lot of GP's surgeries now have in house. So why should they be paid the same for providing totally different services?

Not sure how this is relevant to what GPs are really worth. GPs prescribe drugs. They don't actually do physio - they subcontract this to another practitioner and it could just as easily be done in a different part of the NHS. None of this is really worth £130,000 pa.

 

[treelover]

Looks like Fullyplumped is trying to be radical, attacking the producers and apparently supporting the consumers/patients. I, wonder what the arch Blairite is upto?, after all he is fully aware New Labour are going to get a drubbing in the local elections in May, thats if anyone bothers to vote..

 

[Fullyplumped]

Looks like Fullyplumped is trying to be radical, attacking the producers and apparently supporting the consumers/patients. I, wonder what the arch Blairite is upto?, after all he is fully aware New Labour are going to get a drubbing in the local elections in May, thats if anyone bothers to vote..

This is an ad hominem argument - attack me rather than my argument, and try to attribute some conspiracy motive rather than addres the issue.

Treelover, what would you have us do about the greed of the GPs?

 

[Kaka Tim]

This is an ad hominem argument - attack me rather than my argument, and try to attribute some conspiracy motive rather than addres the issue.

Well I also think you often come accross as being on a spin mission for Nu Labour. Indeed I have to applaud your efforts in defending the indefenisble on the 'loans for peerages' thread and you nobly standing up for Tessa 'I married a bent lawyer' Jowell .

'Greedy GPs' sounds very much like an appoved line coming out of the darker orifices of this government.

So excuse me if I'm a bit cynical about your motives here.

 

[Callie]

Treelover, what would you have us do about the greed of the GPs?

Youve suggested somehow cutting their wages to about a third You cant really see that as being realistic or even possible, can you?!

 

[Fullyplumped]

Youve suggested somehow cutting their wages to about a third You cant really see that as being realistic or even possible, can you?!

Of course I don't think it's realistic or possible! But it would be fair.

I think my suggestion of flooding the country with lots more doctors is a better long term solution.

 

[scott_forester]

Of course I don't think it's realistic or possible! But it would be fair.

I think my suggestion of flooding the country with lots more doctors is a better long term solution.

Flooding them from where?

 

[Fullyplumped]

Well I also think you often come accross as being on a spin mission for Nu Labour... So excuse me if I'm a bit cynical about your motives here.

Well that at least is a bit nicer in tone than Treelover, for which I guess some thanks are due.

Suppose it wasn't me, but some trot who was criticising the greed of the GPs? Lots of people here seem to be happy to stand up for what they've done, even though on the account of the GP who wrote the article I quoted they are pocketing huge amounts of the extra spending this Government has diverted to the NHS. The increase in spending will come to an end in due course - it has to - will all of these people refrain from attacking what will be perceived to be a cut? I seriously doubt it.

 

[Callie]

Of course I don't think it's realistic or possible! But it would be fair.

I think my suggestion of flooding the country with lots more doctors is a better long term solution.

How?

 

[Fullyplumped]

Flooding them from where?

You must have failed to read my earlier post.

I am suggesting that we hugely expand medical education, and train five times as many medics. That number of doctors will dilute the economic power of the profession, and will be very popular with the thousands of bright young people, and their parents, who apply or would like to apply to medical school, but are turned away. Our country would have lots more trained doctors, and those for whom there weren't jobs in this country would have skills that could gain them a living in any part of the world. Of course the ridiculous salaries would shrink and greedy kids would go into some other line of business, so it's a win-win solution all round. We might even save some lives!

 

[Fullyplumped]

How?

You too!

 

[Callie]

are you going to force young people to take up the profession at gun point? who pays for their initial education and how do you think young people will feel about paying off their medical training (which is ... how many years? 10?)

 

[scott_forester]

You must have failed to read my earlier post.

I am suggesting that we hugely expand medical education, and train five times as many medics. That number of doctors will dilute the economic power of the profession, and will be very popular with the thousands of bright young people, and their parents, who apply or would like to apply to medical school, but are turned away. Our country would have lots more trained doctors, and those for whom there weren't jobs in this country would have skills that could gain them a living in any part of the world. Of course the ridiculous salaries would shrink and greedy kids would go into some other line of business, so it's a win-win solution all round. We might even save some lives!

But you're assuming people want to be GPs. The fact you have to run your own business - which isn't fun - puts people off. You've also picked up on the point that the UK underpays Doctors, Nurses etc which is why they can all get very nice jobs in sunnier places.

The problem with being a GP is you get the shit end of the stick and then are asking why your hands are dirty.

 

[Fullyplumped]

are you going to force young people to take up the profession at gun point? who pays for their initial education and how do you think young people will feel about paying off their medical training (which is ... how many years? 10?)

No I don't think the med school press gangs will be part of the picture. All med schools get huge numbers of applicants, more than they could ever accommodate. I don't think there would ever be a problem in recruiting kids, and mature students, into medical training.

I don't think they would face any greater difficulty in paying for their education than any other aspiring graduates. As to how they would feel - I guess they'd feel the same as anyone training to be a doctor.

There would be a cost to the state in increasing medical school capacity - we're rich enough to cover that!

The only ones who would be upset would be the BMA, and some trots who get upset about anything so who cares what they think.

 

[Callie]

No I don't think the med school press gangs will be part of the picture. All med schools get huge numbers of applicants, more than they could ever accommodate. I don't think there would ever be a problem in recruiting kids, and mature students, into medical training.

but how many of them can afford to go through the training? how many will be clever enough to complete it? how do you make people become gps rather than hospital consultants/SHO's.

I could be a doctor if it was that easy. Not sure anyone would want me looking after them though