It was illuminating to listen to Labour Party’s Wes Streeting talk about his party’s plans specifically when it comes to general practice in this Talking General Practice podcast episode.  While firm promises were kept to a minimum, there was at least a recognition of the current situation and a willingness to address these over time.

When it comes to funding for general practice the overall message was that this would rise over the term of the next government rather than immediately, and this was a theme that he returned to on a number of occasions.  There is a firm promise that the share of GP funding within the NHS budget would grow over the next 5 years.  Given overall NHS funding will rise, this is positive for general practice.

But that investment will not come straight away.  When asked about the recommendation of the doctor and dentist review body (DDRB), which is in effect the last scheduled opportunity for whoever is in government to increase the in year funding for GPs, Wes Streeting’s response was that he would, “look at what he can do”, and that he was mindful of the “risk of industrial action by GPs”.

Then when asked directly about the industrial action he talked about wanting to end the industrial action across the NHS, and that he “wants to hit the reset button if Labour win the election”, but with the caveat that he would need time and that he could only resolve the issues working in partnership with the profession.

On the one hand this is good news in that an incoming Labour government will take the concerns of general practice seriously (something that appears to have been lacking over the last 3 years of the outgoing government).  But on the other hand the likelihood of a satisfactory financial in year solution being offered to general practice looks remote, and instead there is likely to be some short term olive branch funding backed up with promises of additional funding in the medium term.

This could potentially lead to some difficult decisions for general practice.  Will the profession accept less than adequate short term funding in an attempt to work in partnership with a new government based on promises of further future investment? Or will it stick to its current course of industrial action and demand greater resources in the short term, potentially putting it at odds with the government that will hold the purse strings for the next 5 years?

There were some other positive messages for general practice.  When asked about the future of the partnership model, Mr Streeting said he did not regret starting the debate about it, but that it was genuinely a consultation, and there are now no plans to end or overturn the partnership model.

There is almost a promise to relax the ARRS rules so that this funding can be used for GPs and practice nurses.  He claims the existing rules are “too restrictive” and that he would “seriously consider” a modification of the scheme, but stopped short of a firm commitment.

He did, however, commit to reducing what he termed “accountability measures” and for this funding to be redirected towards incentivising continuity.  He talked positively about continuity being good for patients, good for retention of GPs and good for outcomes.  It is inevitable that the focus on access will continue, but if this can at least be accompanied by a focus on continuity it will be a step in the right direction.

Whoever comes into power there is unlikely to be a huge investment into general practice, given the overall financial situation.   But even if there is no immediate resolution to the challenges the impression I was left with from Wes Streeting was that there would be a willingness to improve the situation going forward, which would be a welcome change from what the profession has had to endure over the last few years.