That is a very, very interesting perspective. Thank you very much for sharing it!

We're at a crossroads, says @liamloftus.bsky.social. Carry on as we are, partnership won't exist in 15 years. Young GPs like the positive things which come with partnership, but the risk/reward ratio is skewed too heavily to risk - the financial cost, the personal toll. #NTSummit

Very good points, Phil!
Some excellent work by @becksfisher.bsky.social out today on the numbers, particularly the number of early career GPs who are (or are not) becoming partners when compared to previous generation.

www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/the...

I completely agree there’s the sharp rise in activity.
I also agree that the fall in % of NHS spend on general practice has been damaging. On the latter, I really hope the money pre-Christmas that reverses this trend is a sign of things to come 🤞

A very interesting debate - thanks Steve!

This PCN (non-ARRS) funding can then be used by the PCN to employ staff (including GPs), which will in turn increase practice activity.

If I've understood correctly, I still think it's a bit confusing to exclude PCN funding from calcs, but include activity which has been paid for using PCN funding.

Thanks Steve.
I see. So ARRS alone accounts for some but not all of the activity increase.

But in addition to ARRS, there is other funding attached to being a part of a PCN, such as the Core PCN Funding payment, and the Capacity and Access Support Payment.

It feels a little confusing to exclude PCN sources when it comes to funding, but then include PCN sources when it comes to activity.
That's providing I'm not missing something?
Cheers Steve!

Thanks for the reply Steve!

I understand your numbers, but you talk about providing 20% more appointments with 20% less funding.
Are a big portion of those 20% extra appointments not undertaken by staff employed by non-"GP practice funding," such as via the ARRS scheme?

The graph you shared with me (below) showed a real terms increase in overall general practice funding over the time period you state.

As we know, general practice funding is a very complex area to get our heads around, so do say if I'm missing something.

Graph: www.health.org.uk/reports-and-...

Hi Steve, hope you don't mind me asking...
Do you think saying GP practices receive 20% less funding is an accurate representation of the full picture?
Would it be more accurate to say one funding source (core GP contract) has fallen, but others have risen, resulting in a real-terms increase?

✅ Focused support: Tailored approaches for older adults & those with mental health challenges.

Curious to learn more?

Check out our evidence brief for detailed recommendations: www.heec.co.uk/resource/wha...

(4/4)

✅ Cultural & language tailoring: Materials in multiple languages & relevant to communities
✅ Visual aids: Pictograms, animations, & narrated videos
✅ Sustained training: Long-term programs meeting real-world needs
✅ Digital tools: Pair literacy training with access to personal health records

(3/4)

At the Health Equity Evidence Centre, we recently explored this in an evidence brief! 📚

Our focus:
What can policymakers & practitioners do to meaningfully improve health & digital literacy in underserved communities?

So, what works? 👇

(2/4)

All of this information is very helpful. Thank you so much for sharing!

This is really interesting - thanks for sharing Steve. 👍

The 18-25% real terms funding loss since 2015 - do you know whether that figure is based only on money going into general practice? Do you know whether it takes into account money practices receive via PCNs?

I see - that is interesting. Thank you for taking the time to share this insight - much appreciated

Interesting. Do you know of any maths that would back this up?

@drstevetaylor.bsky.social’s numbers below would suggest it’s a pretty significant uplift, after accounting for budget and inflation?

bsky.app/profile/drst...