Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The letter from Carr-Hill and Roberts pointed out that the effect of
allocating resources based on the revision of the practice list sizes.
They said, referring to the dilemma,
"It is essential that, whatever the decision finally made as to which
is the most appropriate and practical to be used in designing weighted
capitation formulas, both the Office for National Statistics and the
health authorities ensure that both sets of figures are accurate and that
they are based on the most up to date information possible. Whichever is
chosen, there will be substantial shifts in the target budgets for some
authorities and practices."
Given that the GPC negotiators seem to have learnt this AFTER the
pricing of the contract, they will have dificulty in defending their
positions. The evidence that there would be substantial upheaval if these
figures were to be used has been available on your web site for three
years.
Trefor Roscoe
Competing interests:
A GP in a PMS practice not affected (at the moment) by the GP contract disaster.
Disaster waiting to Happen
The letter from Carr-Hill and Roberts pointed out that the effect of
allocating resources based on the revision of the practice list sizes.
They said, referring to the dilemma,
"It is essential that, whatever the decision finally made as to which
is the most appropriate and practical to be used in designing weighted
capitation formulas, both the Office for National Statistics and the
health authorities ensure that both sets of figures are accurate and that
they are based on the most up to date information possible. Whichever is
chosen, there will be substantial shifts in the target budgets for some
authorities and practices."
Given that the GPC negotiators seem to have learnt this AFTER the
pricing of the contract, they will have dificulty in defending their
positions. The evidence that there would be substantial upheaval if these
figures were to be used has been available on your web site for three
years.
Trefor Roscoe
Competing interests:
A GP in a PMS practice not affected (at the moment) by the GP contract disaster.
Competing interests: No competing interests