TAXPAYERS, patients and thousands of hard-working GPs - many already demoralised by increasing workloads and a decade of disinvestment - can be rightly angry that money supposed to help tackle health problems in some of Scotland's poorest communities has been used instead to line the pockets of a few less scrupulous doctors.
The allegation that research demonstrating the problem has been "suppressed" by those in a position to act is even more infuriating.
READ MORE: Claim report on Glasgow GP incomes 'suppressed'
To be clear, Dr Irvine is certainly not accusing all Deep End GPs of misusing the funds. In fact, the Herald is aware of many Deep End GPs taking home modest sums who are both angry at the behaviour of a minority of their colleagues and frustrated by the reluctance of those in power to shine a light on it.
That must end. The research deserves to be published - or at least passed to Audit Scotland - and a similar analysis should be carried out Scotland-wide.
Of course, GPs earning unusually high sums are not unique to the Deep End, but it is uncomfortable that they should have been found in a higher concentration - consistently, over a decade - in practices paid extra to address the health inequalities associated with poverty.
Read more: Warning majority of GPs will pocket extra funding as salary
It is money that could have been spent hiring mental health workers, physiotherapists, extra practice nurses or additional GPs.
Instead, some appear to have shunned such expenses to ensure that their own earnings go up.
Some critics will say this problem is intractable as long as GPs run their practices as small businesses. They will say that GPs should be salaried NHS employees, like hospital consultants, not independent contractors.
However, the independent contractor model has huge advantages: it cuts down on red tape, and enables innovation that often benefits patient care.
Read more: GP leaders raise concerns that new contract will stifle 'profit motive'
Being independent also means GPs are free to speak out and criticise, something hospital whistleblowers - directly employed by the NHS - cannot.
What is really needed is transparency. If income and expenses data by practice was publicly available and open to scrutiny, the minority exploiting the system would be less inclined to do so - or at least exposed if they did.
But with the new contract also set to deliver a £23m no-strings-attached windfall in April to two thirds of GP practices (via a controversial formula that is pumping extra funds into the Central Belt while most rural GPs get no funding uplift whatsoever), taxpayers are entitled to know how that is spent.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel