ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2001
Rationale for the new GP deprivation payment scheme in England: effects of moving from electoral ward to enumeration district underprivileged area scores.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- So much to do, so little time: care for the socially disadvantaged and the 15-minute visit.Archives of internal medicine · 2008Article
- Care Need Index, a useful tool for the distribution of primary health care resources.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Department of Health introduced a new deprivation payments system for general practitioners (GPs) on 1 April 1999. Following a three-year phasing-in process, registered patients will attract deprivation payments based on the underprivileged area (UPA) score of their enumeration district (ED) of residence, rather than their electoral ward, changing the pattern and distribution of payments throughout England.
aimTo assess the rationale behind the changed deprivation payments system for GPs in England and to examine its impact on GP and practice payments. DESIGN OF STUDY: A quantitative study modelling practice-based deprivation payments.
settingA total of 25,450 unrestricted principal GPs in 8919 practices in England.
methodThe effect of three new components in the system were examined: changes in the ED score ranges attracting payment, the percentage increase in the size of successive payment bands, and the total budget. The relationship between consultation rates (used as a proxy for workload) and UPA score was examined, together with changes in GP payments calculated nationally and by geographical area.
resultsA total of 11.6% of the population of England live in wards with a UPA score of 30 or more, qualifying for deprivation payments, and a similar proportion (11.4%) live in EDs with a UPA score of 20 or more. The larger percentage increases in the size of payments in successive ED UPA bands is supported by the modelled relationship between consultation rate and UPA score. Financially, under the new deprivations payment system, entitlement widens with 88% of practices receiving a payment. Overall, 74% of GPs gain and 13% lose (3% losing more than 1500 Pounds), with 13% receiving no payment.
conclusionThe new ED system maps onto the previous system well. Moreover, it more finely discriminates between smaller areas of different relative deprivation and, thereby, targets payments more accurately.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11407049PMC1314025What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.