Subscribe Today

Hi, Is it right to assume that the future direction of the neighborhood team is to formulate multidisciplinary teams that deal with specific health issues (care for the vulnerable, addiction, frailty, urgent care, end of life, musculoskeletal issues, etc.)? Is there any evidence that this would improve access, quality, and cost-effectiveness compared to the system that we currently have? My second question: What do you mean by additionally in ARRS? In practice, the ANPs and PAs hired through ARRS are seeing bread-and-butter GP cases that used to be seen by the GP. These should be categorized as core practice roles and GP practices should reimburse themselves as they are paid to deal with these issues (in the global sum). It is the GP Partner’s choice who performs this task (a GP or PA or ANP). ANPs and PAs should be reimbursed by ARRS only when they take work outside the core care (like in integrated neighborhood teams, structural integration etc. etc.) I think everyone would agree that diagnosing and treating cellulitis is a core GP service and that PCN funding shouldn’t look at who is doing the job (GP, PA or ANP). Rather, it should look at what service is the money spent on (treating cellulitis from an ARRS funded role is not value for PCN Money)