Thirty-Five Years of General Practice Payment and Administration in England

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2025-03-27 DOI:10.1111/jep.70064
Richard A. Young
{"title":"Thirty-Five Years of General Practice Payment and Administration in England","authors":"Richard A. Young","doi":"10.1111/jep.70064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Rationale</h3>\n \n <p>Fee-for-service payment is commonly blamed for problems in the US healthcare system, including the current and projected shortage of primary care physicians. Britain's National Health Service (NHS) general practitioner (GP) workforce has been paid mostly by capitation since the creation of the NHS, which leads many US observers to conclude that capitation will solve many primary care problems.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims and Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To compile and synthesize information about GP payment and administration from publicly-avalailable sources.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This was a compilation of 30+ years of articles I accumulated about GPs and the NHS supplemented by Google Scholar, NHS websites, and similar searches to close information gaps; as well as two trips to directly observe UK GPs care for their patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Thirty five years of cycles of scarce resources have impacted the GP workforce and scope of practice. There has never been a golden age of support for GPs. GPs have worked under a series of unfunded or under-funded mandates and have been tasked with responsibilities that more appropriately should have been handled by policy makers. The net result is that the scope of practice of GPs has gradually eroded. The years 2002–2009 were probably the most GP-friendly with the best population outcomes, when GPs were given additional resources and were empowered to positively affect other aspects of their local healthcare system.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The British GP experience shows that it is too easy for politicians to add more work responsibilities to physicians paid by capitation without seriously examining and supporting the GP workforce to achieve the desired goals, which has led some UK GPs to recently propose fee-for-service payment. Administering and paying for GP services through the lens of complex adaptive systems management, with adequate resources, will likely result in a more effective and sustainable GP workforce.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70064","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale

Fee-for-service payment is commonly blamed for problems in the US healthcare system, including the current and projected shortage of primary care physicians. Britain's National Health Service (NHS) general practitioner (GP) workforce has been paid mostly by capitation since the creation of the NHS, which leads many US observers to conclude that capitation will solve many primary care problems.

Aims and Objectives

To compile and synthesize information about GP payment and administration from publicly-avalailable sources.

Methods

This was a compilation of 30+ years of articles I accumulated about GPs and the NHS supplemented by Google Scholar, NHS websites, and similar searches to close information gaps; as well as two trips to directly observe UK GPs care for their patients.

Results

Thirty five years of cycles of scarce resources have impacted the GP workforce and scope of practice. There has never been a golden age of support for GPs. GPs have worked under a series of unfunded or under-funded mandates and have been tasked with responsibilities that more appropriately should have been handled by policy makers. The net result is that the scope of practice of GPs has gradually eroded. The years 2002–2009 were probably the most GP-friendly with the best population outcomes, when GPs were given additional resources and were empowered to positively affect other aspects of their local healthcare system.

Conclusions

The British GP experience shows that it is too easy for politicians to add more work responsibilities to physicians paid by capitation without seriously examining and supporting the GP workforce to achieve the desired goals, which has led some UK GPs to recently propose fee-for-service payment. Administering and paying for GP services through the lens of complex adaptive systems management, with adequate resources, will likely result in a more effective and sustainable GP workforce.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国三十五年的全科医疗支付和管理
基本原理按服务收费通常被认为是美国医疗保健系统出现问题的原因,包括目前和预计的初级保健医生短缺。自英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)建立以来,全科医生(GP)的工资主要是按人头支付的,这使得许多美国观察人士得出结论,按人头支付将解决许多初级保健问题。目的和目标汇编和综合来自公开来源的关于全科医生支付和管理的信息。方法收集本人30多年来积累的关于全科医生和NHS的文章,并辅以谷歌Scholar、NHS网站和类似的搜索来弥补信息空白;以及两次直接观察英国全科医生对病人的护理。结果35年的资源短缺周期影响了全科医生的工作人员和执业范围。支持全科医生的黄金时代从未出现过。全科医生在一系列没有资金或资金不足的任务下开展工作,并承担了本应由决策者更恰当地处理的责任。最终的结果是,全科医生的执业范围逐渐受到侵蚀。2002-2009年可能是对国内生产总值最友好的年份,人口结果最好,当时全科医生获得了额外的资源,并被授权积极影响当地医疗保健系统的其他方面。英国全科医生的经验表明,政治家们很容易在没有认真审查和支持全科医生队伍实现预期目标的情况下,给按工资支付的医生增加更多的工作责任,这导致一些英国全科医生最近提出了按服务付费的建议。通过复杂的适应性系统管理来管理和支付全科医生服务,并提供充足的资源,可能会产生更有效和可持续的全科医生队伍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
期刊最新文献
Moral Foundations and Patient-Centered Care in a Brazilian Maternity Ward: A Survey Study. Transparency and Methodological Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Palliative Care. Scoping Review. Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Pharmacogenetics of Pharmacists in the Netherlands: A National Online Survey Study. Parental Attitudes on Childhood Vaccinations: A Qualitative Study on Hesitancy and Motivations. Implementing Genomic Medicine in Primary Care: A Convergent Mixed Method Case Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1