www.independent-practitioner-today.co.uk
APRIL 2015 Issue 70
INDEPENDENT PRACTITIONER TODAY
The business journal for doctors in private practice
In this issue
Beauty and the beasts
A new series on aesthetic practices begins by looking at problems of starting up P10
A fad you should link into Our marketing expert explains there is one social media site you shouldn’t ignore P20
£12.50
NEW!
Our latest Private doctor guide is s’ guide to now available on our website. Go to:
TA X
April 2015
Written by Vanes
sa Sanders
In associatio
n with
www.independent-practitioner.co.uk
Tax avoidance crackdown
A topical warning for doctors involved in, or planning to take up, tax avoidance schemes P36
CQC private fee treatment: Outstanding Good Requires Inadequate improvement By Robin Stride Independent practitioners have expressed anger with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) after it hit them with a 9% increase in its charges for the year ahead. Private doctors’ disgruntlement was heightened after they learned that dentists will escape any fee rise while they are forced to pay much bigger bills than some larger NHS practices. Many independent practitioners feel they are being unfairly targeted by the regulatory body, which this month launched its beefed-up inspections regime following nationwide trials and feedback from the sector. As one Harley Street GP, Dr Samina Showghi, put it: ‘We pay enough already.’ Leading the objections to the higher charges is the Independent Doctors Federation (IDF), which represents more than 1,100 private doctors, including around 400 GPs. In association with
In a statement, it said: ‘The IDF is dismayed that, once again, the independent sector is being asked to subsidise a public body with this recent 9% increase in CQC inspection fees, particularly as dentists are exempt from a fee increase. ‘The IDF is concerned that there appears to be a persistent bias against the independent sector and will continue to work towards creating a fairer system.’ Former practice manager Martha Walker, who advises private practices and clinics about meeting CQC requirements, told Independ ent Practitioner Today: ‘It still appears that the independent sector is continuing to subsidise the NHS. ‘The average doctor practising out of one location – for example, a doctor in rooms in Harley Street – will now pay £1,679 in 2015-16 (£1,540 in 2014-15). This compares to an NHS GP practice in one location with between 5,000 and 10,000 patients who will pay only £725.’ Mr Ian McDermott, managing
partner of London Sports Ortho paedics, said consultants were already facing practice cost rises of 10% a year and had to also cope with cuts of up to 50% in some insurers’ reimbursement rates. He called it a ‘one-sided onslaught’, adding: ‘The CQC fees hike is just typical of the ongoing current craziness in the independent sector.’ According to David Briggs, general manager at London Medical in Marylebone High Street, more big fee rises are now on the way. He warned: ‘There is no doubt governance is important, but the level of governance in the medical sector and the consequent costs will only increase.’ He predicted single independent practitioners would be hurt most and would be increasingly forced to look to work within organisations such as his or the large hospital groups, where governance is managed to the highest standard and they are not faced with manag-
ing CQC costs and annual inspections on their own. The Association of Independent Healthcare Organisations (AIHO) gave a cautionary response, saying it welcomed the CQC’s ‘ongoing positive dialogue’ with the independent sector. It said it would continue to develop this relationship in the coming months ‘to ensure that the sector’s views are effectively represented and taken into account’. Chief executive Fiona Booth said AIHO and its members had been working closely with the CQC over the past few months on the new inspection regime for the independent sector and as part of the Fees Advisory Panel. She added: ‘It is important that the fees required for providers are proportionate. As such, we welcome the CQC’s efforts to better evidence their value for money through their formal performance and evaluation programme. ➱ continued on page 9