Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2007;335:475-477 (8 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.39303.425359.AD
Allyson M Pollock, professor1, David Price, senior research fellow1, Elke Viebrock, lecturer1, Emma Miller, research fellow1, Graham Watt, professor2
1 Centre for International Public Health Policy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, 2 Department of General Practice, University of Glasgow, Glasgow
Correspondence to: A M Pollock allyson.pollock@ed.ac.uk
Changes to primary care have shifted clinical control away from general practitioners and financial control away from government, argue Allyson Pollock and colleagues
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Since 2003 the government has created a market in primary care and replaced the old general medical services contract governing general practitioners with a range of alternatives. The changes gave primary care trusts in England, health boards in Scotland, and local health boards in Wales new powers to negotiate contracts with commercial companies.1 2 Many of the changes to regulation were intended to facilitate the entrance of new providers to the healthcare market.3 General practitioners are no longer contracted directly to the NHS but to the firms or practices that contract with primary care trusts in the market. These bodies are in turn regulated largely through the market mechanism of commercial contracting. We explain how the reforms change the basis of government control and mechanisms for public accountability in primary care and the possible effects on staff and patients.
The primary care market is premised on the break-up of the general
Read all Rapid Responses