PDA

View Full Version : New Pay Scales - for some - in the NHS



frank ward
20-Dec-03, 08:46
To:
The Editor


Dear Sir

Incompetence beggars belief

I refer to recent press coverage of changes to pay and working conditions for senior staff in the Health Service.

The incompetence of this and the previous government beggars belief.

The EU working Time regulations did not fall from the sky. They have been known about for years. This government actually helped to draft them. New Labour even negotiated a delay in the UK implementation, and still exempts large sectors of the workforce.

Yet in full knowledge of the implications for the health service, there have been NO strategic decisions made to provide adequately for the recruitment and training of medical staff. Other European governments have taken steps. Germany, for instance, now has twice as many doctors per head of population as the UK. The Labour/LibDem ruling coalition, now in its fifth year, has failed dismally to plan for Scotland.

Under their cosy new contracts, consultants will spend less hours doing NHS work yet be allowed to continue with lucrative private practice. Consultants in part-time private practice can dodge the Working Time regulations.
Yet while it allows the pampered medical elite to restrict and control entry into the profession, and dictate its working patterns, the government is willing to pay ever more generous terms to this same elite.
An NHS salary exceeding £170,000 per year will be paid to consultants from 2004, but even more staff will be required as locum cover etc. The net result will be an immediate 30% increase in related salary costs for the NHS.
Yet private practice by NHS doctors increases waiting times for the less wealthy and sees the more wealthy pay twice for their treatment.

Our local GPs will now be paid an extra £30,000 per year for a 35-hour week, plus £200 per hour on stand-by, and an unknown greater amount as a locum. In the Highlands, you will get out-of-hours service more by luck than organisation.

So, GP’s are to get a whopping 42% wage rise “to encourage recruitment and retention.” yet the numbers entering medical service is but a trickle compared to what is needed. Meanwhile 30,000 nurses a year leave for better-paid jobs, and these hardworking nurses, cleaners and porters can expect but a pittance to encourage their ‘recruitment and retention’.

Dentists – trained at the expense of the NHS and the taxpayer – can now expect income in excess of £100,000 - but only if they refuse to treat NHS patients, forcing them into private contracts. Under Labour, private practice has seen the decimation of NHS dentistry across much of the UK.
Prior to the election in May 2003, Jamie Stone promised us a new dental college. Maybe he can tell us what happened to it.

Perhaps incompetence is the wrong word. Perhaps this is a deliberate and cynical political decision, allowing the NHS to wither on the vine and accelerate the move along New Labour’s favoured path to privatisation.

A socialist government would reduce the restrictive academic qualifications needed to get into the exclusive medical schools, which presently favours the sons and daughters of the wealthy. We would open the colleges to existing medical staff who may lack the ‘A’ levels but possess the aptitude. By opening up access without reducing standards we would see sufficient qualified graduates entering the NHS in a planned and manageable programme.

But these are not strictly socialist ideas. They could be implemented by any common-sense government of any hue, given the will. But the shambolic and misguided efforts of the ruling parties should serve as an indictment of their politics and be a reminder to everyone to dump them at the next opportunity.

Yours sincerely

Frank Ward
Caithness & Sutherland SSP
St Barr’s
Dornoch
Sutherland
IV25 3LJ
01862 811233

A_Usher
21-Dec-03, 15:16
Frank,
You wrote:
"Our local GPs will now be paid an extra £30,000 per year for a 35-hour week, plus £200 per hour on stand-by, and an unknown greater amount as a locum. In the Highlands, you will get out-of-hours service more by luck than organisation. "

Not my wife, GP Principal for Dunbeath, on call 24/7. In fact the new contract could place this practice in financial difficulties unless issues can be resolved. I am unsure where you got your figures, but this is a large assumption and wrong. NOT all GP's will be better off, in fact around 67 remote and rural practices at this moment in time are unsure about their future, with it still lying in the hands of the Scottish Executive.

Currently locums are almost earning 3 times as much as GP's in post, and this will not continue as up until know there has been an open budget for locums, but in April next year this budget will be cash limited. A real risk that doctors who fall unwell, who are maybe caring for a community on call 24/7 will possibly be unable to receive locum cover, placing them in a very difficult situation.

So please, please please get facts right without making generalisations. As you are a member of a political party, why not do the right thing and speak to those on the ground affected by a new contract that does not favour them and could alter the face or rural health care for years to come, rather than do a disservice to them by posting misinformation.

Andrew Usher
Practice Manager
Dunbeath Surgery

frank ward
05-Jan-04, 14:06
Andrew,

The figures I quoted were taken from an article in the Ross Shire Journal published in late November or December 2003 (Page 6, sorry I didn’t record the exact date).
The article was entitled “Highland medical service now in critical condition”.
“Consultants to be paid £170k as GPs’ salaries rise to £100k”

It reported on a private seminar given to councillors by officials from NHS Highland and the Acute and Primary Care Trusts. Officials were giving a belated scenario of the likely effects of the Working Time directive. The gist of the report is as follows:

8.6% increase in funding for salaries
Real increase in costs of between 25 and 30% for the Highland area
Consultants salaries will rise from £140,000 a year to £174,000
Currently GPs earn around £70,00.
Under new contract £100.000 a year with no out of hours work
£200 per hour for GPs to opt back into ‘out of hours’ work
Number of GPs on call may fall from 60 to 8
Home visits to be replaced by triage service in hospitals.

I wrote my letter in good faith based on the figures above. If these figures are false, I trust you can challenge them. If the Trust or councillors are telling porkies, perhaps we can figure out the motives.

Frank Ward

Anonymous
05-Jan-04, 20:06
:evil Hello :evil

A_Usher
05-Jan-04, 22:17
Hi Frank,
As it stands an inducement practitioner earns nearer £50,000, where as an urban GP could earn £70 000, or even more if you take into consideration external income.

The European working time directive does not apply to GP's at the moment as they are classed as self employed. Under the new contract practice income is being guaranteed at the same level, which is different to personal income, i.e. salary.

Some practices may be better off under the new contract, again most likely urban practices, however there is a very dire situation when it comes to inducement practitioners as at present there have been no guarantees of practice income and as of April this year some practices unless a guarantee is forth coming will possibly need to consider staff redundancies and even possibly a change of position. This is leaving a lot of practices under a great deal of stress and no one wants to lose continuity of care.

At a recent meeting with inducement practitioners the representative for the Scottish Executive appeared to have no answers or solutions to the problems of our essential rural practices, leaving them to merely hope that all will end well, or rather start well in April.

I hope that our services will not suffer, and also feel that whilst many feel the need to debate increases in salaries etc, very little is being discussed about those practices that could close and how this affects patients and communities as a whole. I find this personally quite worrying.

Regards,
Andrew Usher

Mr P Cannop
05-Jan-04, 22:20
I think this is getting out of hand ??

Anonymous
05-Jan-04, 23:39
I think this is getting out of hand ??
:evil [lol] I think you are going to be right.
Eye no what its all about, i think they are trying to get into the next panto at Eden Court. [lol] [lol] [lol]
I got an idea, i think i will ring up eastenders you lot could write there scirps :evil :evil [lol] [lol] [mad] [mad] [evil]

Mr P Cannop
06-Jan-04, 00:04
i am getting board with this topic

A_Usher
06-Jan-04, 00:19
Paul, George,
I am sorry that you are bored with this topic, you are after all free to start your own and not read this topic if you choose.

However, i am disappointed that you feel the possible closure of small surgeries, depleted services, lack of maternity services and possible fatalities is such a boring and unnecessary topic.

Regards,

Andrew Usher

Anonymous
06-Jan-04, 12:22
:evil :evil [lol] [lol] [lol]

A_Usher
06-Jan-04, 14:39
George,
You are far from being gagged, nor over a barrel, and i am not going to warrant a reply to your post, other than to say you are more than welcome to meet with me, as others are to have a chat.

Andrew

rich
06-Jan-04, 16:48
Mr.Usher is suffering under a severe handicap.
He actualy knows what he is talking about.
Any moment now he will be asked to leave the forum...

jjc
06-Jan-04, 22:58
I’m confused. Has this topic been covered previously and I just completely missed it?

A perfectly sensible (I’m not passing judgement on accuracy) posting from Frank followed by a perfectly polite rebuttal by Andrew… followed by another polite explanation by Frank and a very civil response by Andrew. The makings of a proper debate…

Isn’t that the purpose of a message board?

Paul: Other than George’s sorry attempts to start an argument, nothing here is getting out of hand; and as Andrew said, if you are bored of the topic, don’t read it.

George: At the risk of overlooking some sort of history between you and Andrew; why the aggression? Okay, so the posts were long and had numbers in – did you really have that much difficulty understanding them? If so, why not just ask for an explanation instead of attacking the authors? Also, liberally sprinkling your post with smilies doesn’t make it any more acceptable to try to start an argument for the sake of it…

Sorry everybody, rant over…