I was saddened to see that, along with many other journalists,
Kmietowicz had managed to discuss the so-called 30% pay rise of GPs
without mentioning the distortions that are a consequence of changes in
the way that superanuation is reflected in GP accounts.
The figures announced by the Government is based on pre-tax earnings
following analysis of GPs accounts. The major difference in the last two
years has been the change of the method of accounting for superanuation
payments. Previously they were paid directly by the PCT to the pensions
agency on behalf of the GPs and were not shown in GP accounts. Under the
new contract this money is shown to be paid to GPs who then paid it back
to PCTs for onwards transmission to the pensions agency. Consequently GP
income appears to have increased by 14% on top of any real rise.
I would have thought that journal mainly aimed at doctors would get
its facts correct when discussing such a sensitive issue. I feel a
retraction of the article and publication of a more accurate analysis of
the 16% rise that we have actually had is needed.
Trefor Roscoe
Competing interests:
General Practitioner and member of the GPC
Rapid Response:
No mention of Superannuation
Sir,
I was saddened to see that, along with many other journalists,
Kmietowicz had managed to discuss the so-called 30% pay rise of GPs
without mentioning the distortions that are a consequence of changes in
the way that superanuation is reflected in GP accounts.
The figures announced by the Government is based on pre-tax earnings
following analysis of GPs accounts. The major difference in the last two
years has been the change of the method of accounting for superanuation
payments. Previously they were paid directly by the PCT to the pensions
agency on behalf of the GPs and were not shown in GP accounts. Under the
new contract this money is shown to be paid to GPs who then paid it back
to PCTs for onwards transmission to the pensions agency. Consequently GP
income appears to have increased by 14% on top of any real rise.
I would have thought that journal mainly aimed at doctors would get
its facts correct when discussing such a sensitive issue. I feel a
retraction of the article and publication of a more accurate analysis of
the 16% rise that we have actually had is needed.
Trefor Roscoe
Competing interests:
General Practitioner and member of the GPC
Competing interests: No competing interests