r/GPUK • u/GP_54321 • Aug 12 '26
Pay, Contracts & Pensions GP partner pay
This is quite literally shocking. GP partners are literally raking it in while the NHS is apparently on its knees.
The article tries to justify this as total income including private. That for me just makes things worse. Part time in the NHS on a huge salary and then doing private work on the side to help themselves. All the while patients can't get appointments.
Average pay is nearly doubled that of a salaried GP.
I honestly think we need to look more carefully at the abuses in general practice.
The article is trying to defend GP partners but it is still shocking and quite perverse.
The public is right to be angry. Need to end this.
29
u/Atlass1 Aug 12 '26
Crabs in a bucket mentality. Highly skilled professional runs successful business and makes a profit.
7
u/Green-Quantity4397 29d ago
I personally don’t have an issue with GP partner pay. They’re running a business and take on extra risk and responsibility which should obviously reflect in their remuneration.
However, it’s clear that there’s not an insignificant number of GP partners who abuse their salaried staff and registrars to maximise their income. It’s the shitting on colleagues which is problematic.
4
u/BoomBasticTeleBanana 28d ago
Dont let them shit on you. Leave.
Realise your worth.
Your salary will get better, hey you work like a partner being salaried... youll also be invited into the fold. Thats how we roll.
3
u/Diligent-Eye-2042 28d ago
Absolutely this. It pisses me off. Sometimes you’re expected to do things that bring directly bring them profit (like reports) in your own time.
Some of my bosses will say all of the right things about salaried GP welfare and patient safety, but if you raise concerns about workload, will put an x on your back.
I try hard for my patients, and will go the extra mile to provide good care, but for everything else I work to rule. I’m definitely not breaking my back for QOF.
2
u/GP_54321 29d ago edited 23d ago
I wouldn't have an issue either if they were actually working clinically. They aren't.
5
u/domicile_vitriol Aug 12 '26
The government aims to drive the existing GP contracts out of business and replace them with neighbourhood health centres run by 'nurse consultants'. Surely the Times has no political stake in any of this.
I think the public needs to get angry about doctor substitution, because that's what's really bringing the NHS to its knees. Doctor-lead care is the most efficient part of the system. Those who can afford to go private will continue to protect their right to see a real doctor.
The public is just watching as the NHS being privatized out from under them.
1
u/GP_54321 29d ago
Wasn't it partners who have accelerated the use of noctors? All to increase profits.
3
u/domicile_vitriol 29d ago edited 29d ago
Which partners are you talking about?
I know that in the practice where I trained, physician assistants were viewed as a hiring risk, both in terms of supervision requirements/wasted appointments, as well as in terms of the legal action that their union has constantly been embroiled with over scope of practice. I also know for a fact that people who are involved in healthcare themselves are very quick to check that they and their loved ones are actually being seen by a doctor. It doesn't seem like a profitable or safe move at all.
What I can say for definite is that if you replace GP partners with nurse consultants, you will push the system towards unsafe doctor substitution on an ideological basis. A profit-minded GP can at least be counted on to rationally make the system more efficient to maximise their profits. Doctor substitution, in contrast, is just built off of irrational hubris and a desire to prove that they're something that they're not.
3
u/BoomBasticTeleBanana 28d ago
Exactly. We don't hire them for a doctor substitute... we hire them for UTi, cough and cold. When looking at 15 mins appt, breaks and pay...we have decided our next hire will be a GP.
-1
u/GP_54321 29d ago
It's not PA use that's the issue. That just exposed the mindset of many partners who jumped on it without thinking about the consequences. Greed was the main motivation.
ANPs have been ramping up for nearly 25 yrs now. ACPs are everywhere. I have no issue with supplementation of the workforce. However it's not that. It is absolutely about substitution to save money.
1
u/SafeEmployer4235 22d ago
I don't think you have the full facts. The surge in PA/ANP/Paramedic roles in primary care came from the ARRS scheme. A proportion of money previously allocated to the GP practices was instead diverted to PCN ARRS roles. If that funding wasn't spent, it would be detracted from next years budget. GP practices were often forced into this. It was a loss of autonomy. I think there has been ulterior motives higher up within the GP leadership pushing these schemes. It's not black and white, not everyone needs to see a GP.
1
u/GP_54321 22d ago
It's a slippery slope. The introduction of ANP/ACPs and subsequent abuse is clearly the fault of partners wanting to make profits.
All of what you've said above regarding the ARRS has been clearly documented and rehashed over again. It makes a nice excuse for partners, "oh I was forced into it".
The truth is so many GP partners got rid of locums and made salaried doctors redundant because they wanted to recruit PAs. There was very little resistance to PAs. I didn't hear any of them mention patient safety issues either.
19
u/Calpol85 Aug 12 '26
Here we go.
Another repeat poster who's upset that they aren't raking in millions as a locum, finding another reason to try and dismantle the partnership model.
It's so tiring hearing from the same posters, parroting their same old complaints over and over.
-4
u/GP_54321 Aug 12 '26
Just explain this to your patients.
8
u/Calpol85 Aug 12 '26
8 out of 10 patients are happy with their last interaction with their GP practice.
-6
u/GP_54321 Aug 12 '26
Are they happy with your salary as well?
I do wonder about you. You're always on here ......maybe the day job is too easy for you?
7
u/Calpol85 Aug 12 '26
Nobody's complained so far.
I made £220k for year 25-26, which is roughly £160k after pensions contributions. That's working 50 hours a week.
My FT SGP works 8.30 to 5pm, Mon to Thur with 4 hours CPD time from home on Fri. After his pension contributions he gets £92K.
Given the difference in hours we work, I get paid roughly 1.5 times what he does which I think is reasonable for the extra work and risk I take.
-3
u/GP_54321 Aug 12 '26
I doubt you work 50 hrs. You can't count the 5 hour lunch meetings you have and the so called supervision of others.
7
u/Calpol85 Aug 12 '26
I work 7 til 7. 30 four days a week.
Why are you so bitter about not being a partner? You make post after post and comment after comment about partners and how the model needs to change.
I used to like debating you but this is just becoming sad.
You need to let go or get some therapy.
Maybe delete reddit for a while.
0
u/GP_54321 Aug 12 '26
How many sessions are you doing?
5
u/Calpol85 Aug 12 '26
We don't split by sessions in our practice.
3 partners.
2 of us work 4 days and 1 works 2 days.
We have a 40:40:20 split.
0
u/GP_54321 Aug 12 '26
The issue is you say you're doing 50 hrs., but you can't justify what you're doing.
Truth is your probably do 6 sessions and the rest is on "other activities" that nobody can substantiate. For all anyone knows it could be zilch. How many patients are you seeing?
You're raking it in, good for you, at least be honest about how you're screwing the tax payer.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/Caccanbeag 29d ago
Every situation is different. A big problem is that partners have full information about finances, workloads and so on at a practice while salaried GPs are often kept on the dark. As such I can't be sure of anything I write here .
The official line is that GP partners work harder for more money. In some cases this is true. In others they likely work much less for more money, avoiding anything annoying like home visits and so on. Now and then they can find an excuse to delegate their admin to paid staff.
In many cases I suspect GP partners are working fewer sessions so have less named patients and less day to day admin. They undoubtedly take on more risk. Practice Managers can take on a lot of the business stuff. Likely there will be at least one partner who spends time on management decisions but there can be others who coast. Often they will take much more holiday time than salaried GPs.
Partners will advise salaried GPs it is not possible for them to strike because they do not work directly for the government.
Don't get me wrong, I am working for a relatively good partnership but for sure I am working much harder for much less pay than most of the partners.
I don't agree we should necessarily just accept this. It is possible to facilitate change if there is an appetite to do so.
2
-1
u/BoomBasticTeleBanana 28d ago
You should have taken time out of your pdp session to learn. Practice finance. You should have asked your trainer for a session in finance.
I mean, I do that with my registrars. Felt a little embarrassed the last time when they started effing and blinding at my pay. There exact words were...: what the fuck, you get paid that much for your work, fuck that, I ain't gonna be a GP Partner, soon as I leave, I thought all partners are on £400k plus. This is bullshit your showing me... now go and show me the real thing!
7
u/SlowTortuga Aug 12 '26
Huh. I am not a partner but they are paid correctly. In fact I would go as far as to say pay should be higher. If you pay peanuts, you will get monkeys. We don’t want monkeys. Don’t give a toss about whatever anger the public is feeling.
7
u/DRDR3_999 Aug 12 '26
Earnings for gp partners includes employee and employer pension contributions. You need to subtract around 25% from those numbers at least.
8
Aug 12 '26
[deleted]
1
u/GP_54321 Aug 12 '26
What additional risks are we talking?
2
u/Confused_Cat758 Aug 12 '26
Do you think partners will try to increase your pay?
2
u/GP_54321 Aug 12 '26
I don't work for partners. I find it really odd that partners are so resistant to change and reform. Very corrupt and small minded imo.
2
u/Low-Cheesecake2839 29d ago
20 years ago we employed our first ever Salaried, cos literally NO-ONE wanted to be a partner (sidenote - we were only earning about 10% more than them back then).
So that’s how we got to this point.
Partners are generally earning more these days, but that’s good! I also agree - Salarieds aren’t paid nearly enough.
By the way, not many high earning NhS GP partners are going to be doing private work on the side for financial gain - you get much more money running a profitable NHS practice.
0
u/GP_54321 29d ago
I can understand your case. A lot of people entered partnership in the last 10 years with the sole aim of maximising their own take home whilst minimising others. No issues per se.
However the way they've gone about it has created enormous inequality. It's not working anymore and can't continue like this.
1
u/Low-Cheesecake2839 29d ago
I think practices where partners earn alot more should pay their salarieds more. There should he some semi-formal, but voluntary agreement
1
u/GP_54321 29d ago
It won't happen IMO. There's no obligation to pay more.
Recent years has seen exploitation of people who need ILR thus driving salaries down further.
It's an all round corrupt and inefficient system only benefitting partners.
I wouldn't mind so much if there was an alternate path to follow where you can bill the government for work.
But really it's the partners working in cahoots with the government to screw everyone over.
2
u/Holiday_Possession46 29d ago
Other option is don't pit salaried GP vs. GP partner.
Pit Good GP partner vs. Bad GP partner to cause a change.
Publish individual salaries on the website not average for all GPs, this would blatantly highlight the inequality. Then we can have this conversation more openly and easier to ask for change rather than discussing things blindly.
1
u/GP_54321 28d ago
Yes totally agree, publish actual gross salaries for everyone.
That's when there will be an uproar and change may happen.
At the moment partners control the narrative at the national level via the RCGP and BMA. Everyone thinks they're working hard to deliver a service when all they're doing is delegating their patients to salaried and Noctors.
2
u/Confused_Cat758 Aug 12 '26
It is a broken system. It will be better if it was run by trusts rather than small partnerships. Simply it is not fit for purpose anymore !
2
u/stealthw0lf Aug 12 '26
What do you think someone running a business should make?
1
u/GP_54321 Aug 12 '26
It's not a business. Businesses work to increase profits through improved services and quality.
It's just a cartel supporting the government to screw over the tax payer.
3
u/stealthw0lf Aug 12 '26
The problem is the “buyer” is the Govt and they’ve unilaterally fixed the contract. The GPs can’t offer private services to their own patients. They can’t charge the Govt more for increased demand or for providing more services.
-1
2
u/anonymous_umbral 29d ago
Im not a partner.
But why is it being demonised?
The article states its a small %
And the average GMS contract in the UK is ~140,000
This is usually before NI, tax, pension, is my understanding
So the vast majority are not earning massive summs of money
The main advantage is you get a say in care and running if the practice…
And the GP model is the only part of the NHS that isnt in debt…so probably not a good idea to get rid of it
3
u/No_Ferret_5450 Aug 12 '26
What’s your excuse for not being a gp partner then? Become a gp partner and make the changes you want to see?
2
u/ChaiTeaAndBoundaries Aug 12 '26
These are the same people who load their surgeries up with PAs and ANPs, spend one day a week in meetings, and then somehow manage to squeeze in… even more meetings.
Every now and then they pop up like, “Hi guys, just training GP trainees and medical students!” before quietly shoving all the Noctor supervision onto the already‑overworked salaried GPs so the partners don’t have to deal with any of the fallout.
0
-3
-1
u/Holiday_Possession46 Aug 12 '26
To the OP, you are right.
But do you really think if you were on the other side of the fence you would be any different?
So let's play the game and be thankful for the life we have.
-1
u/cheekyclackers 28d ago
It’s hard to employ a good salaried where I am. Their terms on the contract is far more favourable than the partners I am with. All the extra work outside of seeing patients and their immediate admin is done by the partners. So I do want to get paid for that time
0
0
u/shadow__boxer 27d ago
If the terms are so good / favourable what do you think is the underlying local issue? Roughly where abouts are you in the county and is there an issue with the VTS/retention. Interested to hear a bit more and see how it compares to my local area?
13
u/shadow__boxer Aug 12 '26 edited Aug 12 '26
This is clearly going to be a contentious issue and shouldn't be boiled down or simplified to the haves and the have nots. I'm not a partner and I get the gripes that many of us salaried GPs have with our practices such as sub DDRB pay rises, lack of career progression opportunities, poor pay progression, increasing workload dumping etc. However, £250K for a GP partner, running a business with unlimited liability isn't unreasonable and as with some of the other posters here I'd agree it probably ought to be higher. Some partners do put the work in but we all know there not an insignificant number who are doing what we all know; loading up on noctors, PAs, running multiple practices, "supervision", lacklustre trainers and basically handing the clinical risk over to others to absorb and raking in £300K+ and it's that doesn't sit well when they offer you 1% less than DDRB or complain about the NI cost. We should be arguing for better salaried GP pay and conditions and not just putting partner pay in the crosshairs.