The BMA has urged the Treasury to increase GP core funding by ‘at least £40 per weighted patient’ – around £2.5bn – ahead of this year’s Autumn Budget.
In a submission to the Treasury outlining NHS ‘funding priorities’ over the next year, the doctors’ union put a particular focus on the need to boost GP funding.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves will set out the Government’s Autumn Budget on 30 October, and she has indicated that this will involve ‘difficult decisions’ on spending.
The BMA warned the chancellor that current collective action by GPs means there is ‘considerable urgency’ to reversing the underfunding of general practice.
And today the BMA’s GP Committee England chair Dr Katie Bramall-Stainer confirmed that she will meet with health ministers next week to discuss collective action and funding, after ‘some very positive conversations’.
The BMA’s submission for the Autumn Budget argued that investment has ‘not kept up with’ increasing cost pressures in general practice, meaning some surgeries have been unable to offer staff pay rises, while others have been ‘forced’ to reduce staff numbers or ‘to close or merge’.
Based on this, the BMA called on the Treasury to increase funding for the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to allow for £2.5bn of additional investment in the GP core contract.
‘We have modelled a requirement for GP practice core funding to increase by at least £40 per weighted registered patient, ie at least £2.5bn overall, which reflects a mere c1.5% of current NHS expenditure,’ it said.
In addition to this, the union wants to see a commitment to longer-term investment in general practice in England, including a ‘minimum standard investment’ and ‘fair annual funding increases’
The submission said: ‘Patients deserve a new GP contract for England, which would commit to a minimum general practice investment standard that protects neighbourhood services and the delivery of out-of-hospital care led by expert generalists who know their patients and provide continuity of care for years to come.’
The submission, sent last month, also argued that more investment in GP practices will benefit the ‘entire health system’.
GP Committee England negotiators ‘remain ready to work constructively’ with the Government to deliver this increased investment, the submission said.
But the BMA also warned that DHSC and NHS England require ‘backing’ from the Treasury in order to deliver a ‘new well-funded national GP contract’.
The union told the Treasury: ‘A new contract will require a transformative approach: Treasury and DHSC must focus on value for money and productivity within our NHS.
‘A minimum investment standard should be determined alongside fair annual funding increases to the GP core contract.
‘It must recognise population growth, inflation, and provide patients with GPs and practices that have the opportunity to deliver efficient, high quality and safe preventative and long-term expert generalist-led continuity of care.’
Other BMA priorities for the Autumn Budget 2024:
- Increase DHSC day-to-day budget by £13.25bn;
- Fix financial disincentives to work such as pensions and free childcare;
- Increase funding to ensure that pay scales are increased above RPI inflation in 2025/25;
- Increase medical education capacity in order to meet the aims of the long-term workforce plan;
- Increase investment in NHS estates and infrastructure;
- Improve mental health and population health.
Today, at a conference on healthcare workforce planning, held by the Westminster Health Forum, GPCE chair Dr Bramall-Stainer was asked how ministers have responded to GP collective action and about any plans for ‘ramping up’.
She responded: ‘Actually I was able to catch up with ministers at the Labour Party conference and we’re actually going to be meeting next week. We’ve had some very positive conversations so watch this space.’
GPs in England began collective action at the start of August after the vast majority voted in favour of action in a non-statutory ballot.
Practices can choose from a ‘menu’ of actions set out by the BMA, and Pulse revealed in mid-August that almost half of practices were taking some form of collective action.
In September, the Darzi review found that increased general practice funding is a ‘fundamental strategic shift’ required to save the NHS.
However, on announcing the review’s publication, the Prime Minister emphasised that there will be ‘no more money without reform’.
This is literally insane.
Why £40 per weighted patient???
Why not £40 per patient???
The idea that the Carr Hill funding discrepancy is never ending is absurd and damaging.
How can you rationally give proportionally more funding to Practices that have had more funding for every year for 20 years?
The fundamental problem is not in the funding envelope but on how its distributed.
@Matthew Jones: Boomla’s work on Primary Care Consulting shows that between about the age of 35-75 the consultation rate is far higher in deprived communities. Those practices don’t get the capitation for years of low attendance to offset the older and younger years.
Re £40 / patient – this is about right to start to get close to managing the demands from all other parts of health and social care collapsing and ending up at the GP.
Absolutely – I’ve seen very similar stats. A 50 year old in a very deprived area consults as much as a 75 year old in an affluent area.
The problem is – there should be significant scrutiny and thought put into where funding uplifts are most needed and not be reliant on a convenient automatic process.
I don’t think it’s as simple as deprived Vs affluent. But certainly there are relatively overfunded and underfunded areas.
How you get out of this mess is almost impossible. If you are giving one practice £500k more than another… if the appointments were counted tomorrow… then of course the higher funded practice sees more patients.
I think the range is far too high. 0.7-1.3. It’s should be much closer to 0.9-1.1. I don’t think the massive variation in funding is fair in any level.
Carr Hill formula is now out of date. We have 4400 list but weighted 3750, so see 10% for free. These on average younger patients are more tech savy and tend to consult more online and are more health aware so actually use services more. I would be very happy with payment per consult-this will never happen though with current model..