Labor promised GPs more money. Why give them higher national insurance? | Letter

The Chancellor’s decision to spare the public sector from the increase in national insurance, but not to include GP practices, where 90% of patient contacts take place, is a clear example of the Treasury’s inability to provide much-needed to support change (Services for most vulnerable people at risk after NICs rise, charities say, November 1).

Treasury Chief Secretary Darren Jones justified this saying that many GP practices are private businesses, but a way must be found to ensure that investment in GPs and their staff is not continually held back. It is difficult to imagine Wes Streeting fulfilling his wish to see primary care play a greater role while at the same time taking money away from general practice.

The inability to match the number of GPs with the increase in the number of patients registering with them has led to practices adopting triage systems that allocate patients to the first available doctor and therefore reduce continuity of care, which both the outcomes as patient quality improves. satisfaction. Triage can appropriately shorten wait times for more urgent needs, but quicker access to a doctor you don’t know is not what many patients want or need.

The emphasis on savings in the past has also meant that hospitals have become less efficient. To save money, beds have been closed to levels far below comparable countries, resulting in hospital bed occupancy near or above 100% in recent years. There is sufficient evidence that bed occupancy is higher than 85%-90% makes hospitals much less efficientwhere patients are stuck in inappropriate parts of the system.

Saving money often leads to a reduction in administrative support for physicians, while efficiency should mean that highly skilled staff can spend their time utilizing their skills rather than completing administrative tasks.
Phil Taylor
Retired GP, Kilmington, Devon