The BMA has revealed that it is pushing the Government to agree to a ‘full reimbursement mechanism’ for salaried GPs as part of a new contract, as per the old Red Book GMS contract.
At a rally on GP unemployment yesterday evening, GP committee chair Dr Katie Bramall-Stainer said this forms part of its demands for the wholesale GMS renegotiation that it wants to come into force from 2028.
But Dr Bramall-Stainer told the rally these ‘ringfenced practice reimbursements’ need to be ‘locked in’ this year ahead of a three-year Treasury spending review expected in May, so negotiations about this are currently ongoing.
She said: ‘We need a new GP contract in England. And that is where we on GPC England are calling for a full reimbursement mechanism to practices for their salaried GP staff, just like it was in the Red Book, because an awful lot of things changed in the 2004 contract.
‘I think the way salaried GPs are in the workforce, how we’re treated, our terms and conditions, our leverage for discussion within employers can be really challenging, and I’ve been on both sides of that discussion.’
If the GPC is successful in negotiating the change this would amount to the biggest overhaul to GP terms and conditions since the 2004 new GMS contract, which saw GPs hand back responsibility for out-of-hours care.
A new GMS contract to come into force from 2028 at the latest is part of the GPC’s demands to end collective action.
Meanwhile, negotiations for the 2025/GP contract are expected to conclude this month, with LMCs to be given a vote on proposed new terms at the special LMC conference next month (19 March).
The GPC will then be given a final vote on it at its meeting on 20 March, with the contract coming into force from 1 April.
Dr Bramall-Stainer said: ‘The 2025/26 contract deal is vital. It’s vital to bring stability. It’s vital to stop practice closures, to stop those practices having to hand back their GMS contracts due to a lack of financial viability.
‘But strategically, it’s important, because if we do manage to strike a deal, then the door opens to discussions to get a new practice contract locked in to those three year financial instructions coming from Treasury later this spring.’
‘Key’ parts of the discussion include improving funding for vaccinations, reimbursements that form part of the statement of financial entitlements and QOF funding, she said.
She added: ‘So key things for negotiations this year, correct that erosion in the vaccine tariff, correct that erosion in the SFE reimbursements, get the value of a QOF point up, get global sum investments up, correct for the budget losses.
‘Only then, I believe, are we going to see practices having the headspace and the financial ability to be able to start to recruit.’
Pulse has contacted the Department of Health and Social Care for comment.
The GPC had previously told Pulse that it wanted to discuss with the Government and NHS England a solution that ‘enables all practice staffing costs to be directly reimbursed’.
And in a vision document published last year, it said that ‘outdated funding formulae’ need to be replaced to accurately reflect the communities that practices care for.
Pulse’s latest major investigation found clear evidence that deprivation and funding are contributing to the current recruitment and unemployment crisis that GP practices are facing.
Shame the BMA/GPC negotiators at the time failed ( perhaps ignored) to recognise the now realised danger of breaking up the single contract and abandoning the red book.
Perhaps they realised there would be a short term financial benefit to those retiring within the 1st 10 years of “nGMS” to the detriment of the longer term prospects and interests of the GP “profession “
It would be a miracle if the “ red book protections” were reinstated.
@ashokRayni. You are correct. The negotiators for ngms at the time did know very well about the short term benefits (increased pension accrual rates, quof etc) but failed to factor in (or intentionally ignored?) the changes in the contract which was going to be the cause of the demise of general practice. In particular the clause allowing the government to unilaterally change the contract after a period of “consultation”. I recall questioning this in 2003 with the BMA and was told that this clause would only be used in emergency situations and was nothing to worry about. This was stupid nativity or intentional oversite and it want long before Gordon Brown used thst clause to start hobbling general practice and has continued since. A contract which can be unilaterally changed is not a contract and any idiot should have known this. I voted against ngms.