eMJA     The Medical Journal of Australia

Home | Issues | eMJA shop | My account | Classifieds | Contact | More... | Topics | Search   

Letters

GP payment: not just how, but how much

James A Dickinson
MJA 2004; 181 (11/12): 711

To the Editor: The articles in the General Practice issue are most interesting. Sadly, the articles on how general practitioners are paid1-6 have largely missed the point. It is not only how GPs are paid, but also how much that matters. No matter how ideal the incentive incorporated in the payment method may be, if the quantum is too little even the most idealistic GP will find it impossible to work in a professional manner. Payment here includes both direct personal income and the associated practice conditions.

In most countries, changes in GP financing focus more on how to keep costs down than on rewarding quality. Green was the only author to address this issue, making the point that US family medicine organisations have recently changed from showing how good GPs can be to ensuring they are paid well enough to do that good work, and to provide incentives to encourage the next generation of family physicians.6

Since the introduction of the National Health Service (NHS) in 1949, the United Kingdom has gone through several cycles of declining incomes and conditions for GPs, followed by declining interest and recruitment, in turn followed by higher pay and conditions that attracted new recruits. Overall, UK GPs have been paid relatively well compared with their hospital specialist colleagues. It is no accident that the UK has developed the highest levels in the world of academic general practice, as well as research in practice, while the British taxpayers obtain the highest value from their overall health service.7

Currently, in Australia, the Journal classifieds confirm that there are vast discrepancies between expected salaries for specialist and GP services; perhaps there is a lesson for funding. Until salaries for GPs are similar to those for specialists, bright young medical graduates will prefer to work in higher-paying, hospital-based specialties. Merely altering the payment system will make little difference. The value potentially obtained from good primary care will remain out of reach unless the total resources put into this sector are increased.

Competing interests: Academic family medicine in Canada pays better than in Australia.

  1. Van Weel C, Del Mar CB. How should GPs be paid? Med J Aust 2004; 181: 98-99. <eMJA full text>
  2. Malcolm LA. How general practice is funded in New Zealand. Med J Aust 2004; 181: 106-107. <eMJA full text>
  3. Weller DP, Maynard A. How general practice is funded in the United Kingdom. Med J Aust 2004; 181: 109-110. <eMJA full text>
  4. Van Weel C. How general practice is funded in The Netherlands. Med J Aust 2004; 181: 110-111. <eMJA full text>
  5. Martin CM, Hogg WE. How family physicians are funded in Canada. Med J Aust 2004; 181: 111-112. <eMJA full text>
  6. Green LA. How family physicians are funded in the United States. Med J Aust 2004; 181: 113-114. <eMJA full text>
  7. Starfield B. Primary care: balancing health needs, services and technology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary Medical Clinic, Calgary, AB, Canada.

James A Dickinson, MB BS, FRACGP, Professor of Family Medicine.

Correspondence: Professor J A Dickinson, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, 1707, 1632 14th Ave NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1M7, Canada. dickinsjATucalgary.ca

©The Medical Journal of Australia 2004 www.mja.com.au ISSN: 0025-729X

Home | Issues | eMJA shop | My account | Classifieds | More... | Contact | Topics | Search

The Medical Journal of Australia    eMJA