Letter: Little point in fundholding
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The leaked National Audit Commission Report ("Fundholding: 'GPs cannot cope' ", 13 May) suggests that many fundholding practices have produced little benefit for anyone apart from themselves. Our own statistics from Devon would support this.
Any benefits from fundholding must be pretty small, as 95 per cent of Devon fundholders' contracts are with local Trusts, who provide exactly the same services to the patients of both fundholding and non-fundholding GPs. Neither are the savings spent directly on patient care. This year 99 per cent of fundholders' savings in our district (pounds 22,500 per practice) will be spent on practice buildings, furniture and equipment, for which non-fundholding GPs have to pay out of their own pockets.
Fundholding practices will also receive pounds 35,000 per practice from outside funds for management and computers and be able to spend between pounds 20,000 and pounds 25,000 per practice extra on staffing. These are the reasons that many practices have become fundholders though they may not have told the National Audit Commission this. If you need a new computer you more or less have to become a fundholder these days.
It is unreasonable that fundholding practices can access large central funds while GP commissioning practices are unable to. It is also unreasonable that the practice and personal income of a GP should suffer because he chooses GP commissioning in preference to fundholding. Particularly so when peer-reviewed research fails to demonstrate any consistent benefit to patients from fundholding and when the Department of Health continues to obstruct any serious research into GP commissioning.
Dr Michael Dixon
Secretary
Mid-Devon Doctors
GP Commissioning Group
Cullompton, Devon
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments