Quote:
Originally Posted by 1QuirkyKiwi
Thank you!
<snip>
A recent trend here is GPs being Fat phobic and using it as a prognosis for a person’s ill health. They have targets to meet on certain health issues; for every target they achieve they receive a large sum of money. Healthcare here has changed for the worst.
Back home, we have a 3 tier health system with those who can’t afford health care being subsidised.
<snip>
|
What you are saying about how GPs are paid is not really true. Here is a link that explains how docs in the UK are being paid under the new contract.
http://www.bma.org.uk/press_centre/p...p#.T2jtiBHy_Qg
How general practice is funded
Almost all funding in the current contract is practice-based. This means that payments are made to the practice and not to individual GPs. Expenses - for example, rent, utility bills and staff wages - are taken out of this funding pot and the amount remaining, after the cost of providing clinical services has been taken out, makes up the pay available to the GP partners.
The funding formula is extremely complex and funding is distributed to practices according to the weighted needs of their population - for example a practice with a large elderly population, and therefore a greater workload, will get more funding than a practice with a relatively young, healthy population.
GP practices receive their funding through several major streams, though the main ones are the Global Sum, the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), and Enhanced Services:
Here is an abstract from Health Affairs (
www.healthaffairs.org)
Quality Incentives: The Case Of U.K. General Practitioners
Peter C. Smith and Nick York
Abstract
The United Kingdom is implementing major changes to the national contract for general practitioners (GPs). A central plank of the new arrangements is an ambitious scheme to reward high-quality care. Each general practice will be scored on 146 performance indicators according to the measured quality of care it delivers, and its accumulated score will determine the magnitude of the quality payment it receives. About 18 percent of practice earnings will be at risk. This paper describes the incentive scheme, discusses its potential benefits and risks, and draws out the implications for evaluation.
One of the things that has happened under this new contract is the significantly increased number of folks being diagnosed with diabetes. It has been written up in several medical journals.
It is my understanding that New Zealand has a two-tiered payment system, although I have not done recent research on their system. (I lived in NZ in early 2000 and received health care there...)
There are plenty of inaccuracies about how nationalized health care works in other countries being said in the US. I just hate seeing more put out there.