Win luxury hampers plus Waitrose vouchers & guidebooks
Are last-minute concessions ever a good idea? If you’re on the receiving end, of course they are. Which is why GPs can be particularly pleased with the minimum practice income guarantee, which was introduced as a last-minute concession to GP negotiators when the new GP contract was implemented in 2004.
It was devised to ensure that no practice experienced a drop in income when the new needs-based allocation formula was introduced. But Health Service Journal (March 27) reports that the guarantee has driven inequity across the country, with huge variations in payments to practices, regardless of the number and need of their patients.
Figures released to HSJ under the Freedom of Information Act indicate that the guarantee has inflated the basic income received by hundreds of practices under the funding formula by more than 40 per cent.
HSJ obtained details of payments made by 16 primary care trusts (PCTs) to 675 GP practices operating under the general medical services contract. The 675 practices were paid an extra £42 million under the guarantee – 19 per cent above the amount they were due under the allocation formula.
Of these, 73 had their income boosted by 40 per cent or more. Ten practices had their core income boosted by more than 70 per cent. Two Westminster practices, including the practice for Buckingham Palace staff, more than doubled their income.
David Stout, director of the PCT Network, says that the income guarantee “institutionalises unfair variation as a matter of course” and “undermined” the attempt to make services responsive to patient choice. “If you lose people from your list, it doesn’t make any difference to the income guarantee.” About £330 million extra will be paid in the guarantee this year.
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles

Have your CV reviewed for free by experts
Sign up here for your personalised Times Online job alert email
Search Business Schools for MBA providers
2007
£47,995
2008
£42,945
06/2006
£40,850
Great car insurance deals online
£33,000
Macmillan Cancer Support
Central/South West
£50k
NHS
Nationwide
£
£30k OTE
Meltwater News
Nationwide
circa £70k
Central Office of Information
London
5% below developer pre-launch price!
Luxury Appts, beautiful gardens w/ Thames views
Great Homes Available on a shared Ownership Basis
Great Investment, River Views
Visit the ‘entertainment capital of the world’
at great sale prices!
Christmas Cruises
From only £995pp
APTs East Coast now from only
£2425pp.
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - find property for sale and rent in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Well, I wondered as a GP what part of our income would be next to be attacked - the minimum income gaurantee was introduced because the proposed funding formula led to a drop in income for 95% of practices, since that time everyone (apart from the HSJ apparently) has acknowledged the formula was flawed and incorrect, your whole article is based on the formula being correct to begin with.
Why was it incorrect? well the initial Carr-Hill formula was OK - but it proved that almost ALL health needs are age-sex related, and minister/the DOH tried to manipulate it be factoring in deprivation, ethnicity, other variables and thus try to influence spend to areas of percieved "need" rather than following the evidence base.
HMG needed GPs to vote "yes" to get the new contract through - no-one would have voted for a contract where 95% of practices lost out - so now we re-visit the MPIG, look carefully at the reasons it exists before criticising it - to remove it will impact on 95% of surgeries
Dr Mac, York,