Hospital Dr News

GP conflicts of interest “rife” with CCG roles

More than a third of GPs on the boards of new clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) have a conflict of interest due to directorships or shares held in private companies, an investigation reveals.

It provides the clearest evidence to date of the conflicts many doctors will have to manage from 1 April, when the GP-led groups are handed statutory responsibility for commissioning around £60bn of NHS healthcare.

The BMJ used Freedom of Information requests and CCG websites to analyse the registered interests of almost 2,500 board members across 176 of the 211 commissioning groups in England.

It found 426 (36%) of the 1,179 GPs in executive positions had a financial interest in a for-profit private provider beyond their own GP practice – a provider from which their CCG could potentially commission services.

These ranged from senior directorships in local for-profit firms – set up to provide services such as diagnostics, minor surgery, GP out of hours and pharmacy – to shareholdings in large private sector health firms providing care in conjunction with local doctors, such as Harmoni and Circle Health.

In some cases, the majority of GPs on the CCG governing body had financial interests in the same private healthcare provider.

Although some doctors have relinquished interests in private enterprises because of their new roles as commissioners, a total of 555 (23%) of 2,426 governing body members – including all clinical, lay, and managerial representatives – have a financial stake in a for-profit company.

Last week, the BMA’s UK Consultants’ Committee passed a motion at their conference expressing concern at “the clear conflict of interest of GP commissioners who run their own private companies”, and calling on GP commissioners to “be barred from being involved in companies that they are giving contracts to”.

The NHS Commissioning Board has issued a code of conduct to CCGs stating that board members must remove themselves from decisions that they could materially benefit from. But doctors’ leaders have expressed concern that clinical input into commissioning decisions may become diluted if too many doctors are forced to remove themselves from particular decisions.

All of the CCGs found to have notable conflicts said they had robust systems in place for managing potential conflicts, including publishing conflict of interest policies, and regularly updating members’ declarations of interest.

But Michael Dixon, chair of NHS Alliance and interim president of NHS Clinical Commissioners, warned placing too much emphasis on the issue may prevent clinical commissioners from bringing more care into community settings.

The NHS Commissioning Board said it was reviewing its existing guidance and would shortly be publishing “final, comprehensive guidance on managing conflict of interest”.

Dr Fiona Godlee, editor in chief of the BMJ, said: “These conflicts will make the commissioning of some services difficult. Although board members can excuse themselves from meetings when conflicts arise, this could mean some decisions are made by a group of predominantly lay people.

“Some of these conflicts of interest are too great to be ‘managed’. We think that those GPs who have positions at executive board level in private provider companies need to choose between their competing interests and, if need be, step down from the commissioning boards.”

Meanwhile, consultants have been blocked from playing a role in commissioning services because of the “heavy handed” application of conflict of interest rules.

Read more.

Bookmark and Share

One Response to “GP conflicts of interest “rife” with CCG roles”

  1. Malcolm Morrison says:

    Different ‘rules’ obviously apply for GPs and consultants (see previous post)!

    The whole idea of CCGs was (I thought) to have LOCAL GPs and consultants, who knew the LOCAL NEEDS, determining LOCAL funding policies. Clearly both will have an ‘interest’ in providing a good service – in their GP practice or hospital.

    However, if ANYONE – GP, consultant or lay person – has a FINANCIAL interest in a ‘for profit’ company or corporation that might be tenedering then their position on the CCG is untenable.

Post a Comment

Enter this security code

Submit Comment for Moderation