GPs facing national insurance hikes have been told to “hold tight for funding allocations” by Health Secretary Wes Streeting.
Calls have been made for GPs, dentists, hospices, care homes and pharmacies to be exempt from the increase to employers’ national insurance contributions (NIC), which was announced in the Chancellor’s Budget last month.
In the Commons, shadow minister Dr Luke Evans said that GPs view the rise as a “Schrodinger” tax, because they are considered private employees but are exempt from small business relief due to being categorised as public.
Mr Streeting said the Government is considering all pressures that are facing GPs and funding allocations will be announced “long before April next year”.
Speaking from the frontbench on Tuesday, Dr Evans said: “The Royal College of GPs has said the national insurance tax increase is expected to cost 2.2 million appointments.
“We know from written questions submitted that GPs, hospices, care homes, are not exempt and won’t find out until April, i.e. six months’ time, what – if any – mitigation will be put in place and cutbacks are being planned now.
“So, could the Secretary of State explain how his choice to tax GPs will increase GP access?”
Mr Streeting said: “Firstly, can I just reassure health and care providers that we will be setting out allocations long before April next year.
“I recognise that people need to plan ahead of the new financial year and of course when deciding allocations, we take into account the range of pressures on different parts of the system and people have heard what I’ve said already about the need to shift out of hospital into primary and community services.
“What I would say to the party opposite: he talks about choices, they seem to welcome the £26 billion investment but oppose the means of raising it. I’m afraid they can’t do both.”
Dr Evans, a former GP, then said: “One GP described it to me as Schrodinger’s primary care, i.e. GPs are seen as private contractors so not exempt from the NI, but they are exempt from the small business relief because they are deemed as public.
“Isn’t the simple fact here, the health team knowingly went along with the Treasury team’s plan to tax primary care without mitigations, leading to cuts?
“Or the health team didn’t understand or spot the complexity of what’s going on, and therefore having to put mitigations in. Now, which is it?”
Mr Streeting replied: “They seem to welcome the investment, the £26 billion, they’re happy to tell us how it should be spent, but they oppose the means of raising it.
“They can’t do both. They need to be honest with the country, either they’re supporting the investment in the NHS or they’re saying they would cut the investment. Which is it?”
During health questions, Conservative MP Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) said: “I recently met a GP who was in the market to hire a new seven to eight session GP, to meet demand.
“Following the Budget and the increase in the national insurance contribution for employers, he can now only afford a three to four session GP, what advice does the Secretary of State have for my friend the GP?”
Mr Streeting replied: “I would say to GPs who are thinking about staffing for the next financial year, hold and wait for funding allocations shortly, so that they can make informed decisions about staffing and care for patients.”
Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Olney said Fairhill Medical Practice in her constituency of Richmond Park is facing an extra £50,000 bill as a result of the increase.
She added: “Can the Secretary of State tell me whether GPs can expect to see across the board a cut in NICs paid for by GPs, to help them manage to continue to deliver services for families in the area?”
Mr Streeting said: “We’ve not yet announced allocations for general practice for the year ahead, of course we’re taking into account all of the pressures that general practice is under.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel