Select Committee on Social Security Third Report



VIII  DOCTORS' PAY AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

Pay

134. BASDA's evidence states that "the fees paid to sessional doctors... have not increased since 1992"[137] and stand at £30.70 per hour. The BMA's memorandum noted that sessional doctors are paid less than the 'Treasury' rate agreed as a way of rationalising the 1700 different fees formerly paid to doctors for work undertaken by central government. It stated that the DSS is now the only Department not to accept this fee. It also states that "we have to continue to advise doctors not [to] sign contracts with Sema/NDA/Medical Services."[138]

135. The BMA's evidence states that "merely to keep pace with the awards of the Review Body since 1992 would require an increase of over 30 per cent. At present the fees do not cover the cost of a locum for a GP's practice, let alone any of the other expenses that GPs must cover if they are to do this work. Whilst we do not expect to receive such an increase in one go, and we accept that some of the increase will have to be funded by improved efficiency and administration, we believe it is reasonable to expect Sema/NDA/Medical Services to present us with a timetable for significant increases in fees."[139]

136. We do not think it is acceptable that sessional doctors' pay has not been increased since 1992. As well as being unfair on the doctors concerned, this absence of an increase sends out the wrong message about the importance of sessional doctors and hinders the ability of the service to attract high quality doctors to the service. We recommend that Sema examines the case for a one-off 'catch-up' increase in payments to doctors to account for the fact that their pay has not increased since 1992. We further recommend that Sema lays down a timetable for ongoing regular reviews of doctors' pay.

Responsibility for pay levels

137. A complicating factor relating to pay has been the issue of responsibility for setting pay levels following contractorisation. BASDA told us that "there is some confusion about who takes the decisions about sessional doctors pay..... In April 1999 Dr Lee [of BASDA] was advised by the...Secretary of State... to discuss the fee structure with Mr Gillborn of Medical Services. The same Mr Gillborn who had told BASDA that he had no authority in this matter when we met him on 31 January 1999."[140]

138. Responding to this evidence, the Minister told us that "We did spend some time talking to Sema to agree who was responsible and I wrote to the BMA on 17 January and said: "The Benefits Agency has no direct influence over or responsibility for the levels of salaries or fees. The contract does include an annual price increase in line with the average earnings index less a fixed efficiency reduction. It follows that responsibility for salaries and fees lies with Sema. We are not a party to the contract between Sema and NDA,[141] but as main contractor I would expect Sema to be your point of contact for any discussion on fees.""[142] We also note that the Minister acknowledged that political responsibility for the performance of the service rested with him.[143]

139. We were dismayed to find that there was such confusion regarding the important and straightforward question of where responsibility rests for setting doctors' pay. We are pleased to note that the Minister has now given a steer on this issue, but we recommend that, in exercising their overall responsibility for the service, Ministers act speedily to remove confusion as to where day-to-day responsibility rests for detailed aspects of the service.

Training

140. Our comments above relating to claimants with mental health problems and claimants from ethnic minority groups identified specific training needs, and our section on service provided to claimants identified a need for training in customer care issues.

141. Sema's contractual obligations require it to provide five days worth of training for sessional doctors annually. However, BASDA told us that "the NDA agreement asked each doctor to undertake five days of relevant training annually. The expenses and payment for attendance would be paid. There has been no specific training or feedback for incapacity benefit during the first sixteen months of the contract and only sporadic training for the other benefits where there has been a change of procedure."[144]

142. The Chief Medical Adviser acknowledged that the training requirement had not been met: "Although I know that the training delivered to new doctors is of a good quality, I have looked at the modules and there is specialist input, I am not happy that many doctors have not received the five days training that we expected them to have."[145]

143. Medical Services have recognised the importance of training. Mr Crowden-Naylor, the Director, when asked what his priorities were for the service, said that "The priority that we have seen is on the training side. We have both agreed that we need to put more emphasis on the training of sessional doctors and support a longer term quality initiative."[146]

144. We have already recognised the importance of specific areas of training in this Report. As well as the benefits brought to claimants and the BA decision makers from improved performance as a result of effective training, a further benefit would be to make the job more attractive to doctors. As a minimum, we recommend that Medical Services meet their contractual obligations to provide 5 days training to all doctors annually. We deplore the fact that Sema has failed to meet this contractual obligation to date.


137   Ev. p. 39, para 5.  Back

138   Ev. p. 36. Back

139   Ev. p. 37. Back

140   Ev. p. 40, paras 5.5-5.6. Back

141   Nestor Healthcare Group plc. Back

142   Q 565. Back

143   Q 516. Back

144   Ev. p. 39, para 4.5.1. Back

145   Q 558. Back

146   Q 294. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 20 April 2000