GP leaders have accepted a pay deal that means that most GMS practices will only see half of the 0.8% uplift for 2010.
Dr Laurence Buckman, chair of the General Practitioners' Committee (GPC) has expressed disappointment with the outcome.
The General Practitioners' Committee (GPC) and NHS Employers today issued a joint statement in which they confirmed that both sides had agreed to use the methodology recommended by the Doctors and Dentists' Review Body (DDRB) to distribute the 0.8% uplift across the GMS contract.
The statement explained that half of the 0.8% will be applied to the following five elements of the GMS contract, in proportion to their current relative spend: global sum; correction factor; Quality and Outcomes Framework; enhanced services; and locum payments. The remaining half will be invested in the global sum, with no corresponding increase to correction factor payments. Any money that is released through reductions in correction factor payments will be reinvested back into the global sum, reducing the number of practices on the Minimum Practice Income Guarantee (MPIG).
Application of this methodology translates into an uplift of 0.41% for the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) and 0.41% uplift to enhanced services and locum payments.
The weighted price per patient will increase from £63.21 in 2009/10 to £64.59 in 2010/11.
In England, payments inclusive of these uplifts will be made to practices from 1st July and backdated to 1st April 2010.
It is understood that the government had been unwilling to compromise, forcing GPC leaders to accept this method of pay distribution.
GPC chairman Dr Laurence Buckman has described the amount coming in to the global sum practices as "small" and the amount coming into MPIG as "even smaller". He has warned that GPs will have to cut their incomes as expenses rise.
Commenting on the implementation of the 2010/2011 GMS contract uplift, he said: "This announcement ends the uncertainty for GPs surrounding the implementation of this year’s pay award. We remain disappointed that the government chose not to accept the DDRB’s recommendations in full.”