Abstract
BACKGROUND: The general practice fundholding scheme is now at the forefront of the National Health Service (NHS) reforms and should lead to the more efficient use of services by making general practitioners more aware of the financial consequences of their clinical decisions. However, there is a concern that adverse effects may also occur. AIM: To monitor the changes occurring in a sample of fundholding and non-fundholding practices between 1992 and 1995, including providing care nearer to patients, the mixed economy of care, the efficiency and costs of fundholding, and the commitment of fundholders. METHOD: Fifteen first-wave practices, four second-wave practices, and four non-fundholding practices in the former South East Thames Region took part in the study. Information was collected using interviews, questionnaires, prescribing data, and annual fundholders' income and expenditure accounts. RESULTS: Consultant clinics were set up in 10 different practices in 15 different specialties, and paramedical clinics in 12 different practices. Physiotherapy and mental health clinics constituted over 90% of the paramedical hours. Fundholders had private arrangements with an individual consultant or practitioner for approximately half of the contracted hours in both types of clinics. Fundholders had lower overall prescribing costs than non-fundholders, but the overall costs for prescribing for all groups had risen by about one third over three years. CONCLUSION: While outreach clinics may help to provide for the needs of patients with common conditions, they may lead to the fragmentation of services. The provision of primary care by those who are not NHS employees needs careful consideration. Recent policies for general practice have emphasized its role in disease prevention and in coordination of care for chronic illness. Fundholding also promotes two additional roles, the purchasing of care and the development of in-house facilities. Combining these different functions presents a considerable challenge.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (45.1 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Bevan G., Holland W., Mays N. Working for which patients and at what cost? Lancet. 1989 Apr 29;1(8644):947–949. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(89)92519-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Corney R. Experiences of first wave general practice fundholders in South East Thames Regional Health Authority. Br J Gen Pract. 1994 Jan;44(378):34–37. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coulter A. Fundholding general practices. BMJ. 1992 Feb 15;304(6824):397–398. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6824.397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coulter A. Why should health services be primary care-led? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996 Apr;1(2):122–124. doi: 10.1177/135581969600100212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Day P., Klein R. Variations in budgets of fundholding practices. BMJ. 1991 Jul 20;303(6795):168–170. doi: 10.1136/bmj.303.6795.168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dixon J., Dinwoodie M., Hodson D., Dodd S., Poltorak T., Garrett C., Rice P., Doncaster I., Williams M. Distribution of NHS funds between fundholding and non-fundholding practices. BMJ. 1994 Jul 2;309(6946):30–34. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6946.30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stewart-Brown S., Surender R., Bradlow J., Coulter A., Doll H. The effects of fundholding in general practice on prescribing habits three years after introduction of the scheme. BMJ. 1995 Dec 9;311(7019):1543–1547. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7019.1543. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Whynes D. K., Baines D. L., Tolley K. H. GP fundholding and the costs of prescribing. J Public Health Med. 1995 Sep;17(3):323–329. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]