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.
Strong and Radford propose a local amendment to the national Quality
and Outcome Framework (QOF), suggesting that that the QOF contract be
renegotiated between the Primary Care Trust (PCT) executive and the Local
Medical Committee (LMC)(reference1).
It is my understanding of the contract that the QOF component could
not be unpicked and locally renegotiated because it is a national
contract.
The guidance issued in February 2003 by the BMA is clear on where
responsibilities lie for renegotiation of the QOF (reference2).
3.41 An independent UK-wide expert group will oversee the process.
The group will consider the latest evidence available and make
recommendations to the four Health Departments or their agents and the
GPC. It will be the responsibility of the negotiating parties to negotiate
any changes to the quality framework, including pricing changes.
Strong and Radford's proposals should be directed to the appropriate
body for national consideration, rather than local negotiation which, if
implicated, could be subject to legal challenge by GMS practices.
References
1. Mark Strong and John Radford What about the impact on patient health?
BMJ 2007; 335: 60-c
2. New GMS Contract 2003. Investing in General Practice Para 3.41 P
24
Local negotiation of a national Contract
Strong and Radford propose a local amendment to the national Quality
and Outcome Framework (QOF), suggesting that that the QOF contract be
renegotiated between the Primary Care Trust (PCT) executive and the Local
Medical Committee (LMC)(reference1).
It is my understanding of the contract that the QOF component could
not be unpicked and locally renegotiated because it is a national
contract.
The guidance issued in February 2003 by the BMA is clear on where
responsibilities lie for renegotiation of the QOF (reference2).
3.41 An independent UK-wide expert group will oversee the process.
The group will consider the latest evidence available and make
recommendations to the four Health Departments or their agents and the
GPC. It will be the responsibility of the negotiating parties to negotiate
any changes to the quality framework, including pricing changes.
Strong and Radford's proposals should be directed to the appropriate
body for national consideration, rather than local negotiation which, if
implicated, could be subject to legal challenge by GMS practices.
References
1. Mark Strong and John Radford What about the impact on patient health?
BMJ 2007; 335: 60-c
2. New GMS Contract 2003. Investing in General Practice Para 3.41 P
24
Competing interests:
GP partner in a GMS Practice
GP QOF Assessor
Competing interests: No competing interests