title: Rationale for the new GP deprivation payment scheme in England: effects of moving from electoral ward to enumeration district underprivileged area scores.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The Department of Health introduced a new deprivation payments system for general practitioners (GPs) on 1 April 1999. Following a three-year phasing-in process, registered patients will attract deprivation payments based on the underprivileged area (UPA) score of their enumeration district (ED) of residence, rather than their electoral ward, changing the pattern and distribution of payments throughout England.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess the rationale behind the changed deprivation payments system for GPs in England and to examine its impact on GP and practice payments.
  
  
  METHODS
  A quantitative study modelling practice-based deprivation payments.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 25,450 unrestricted principal GPs in 8919 practices in England.
  
  
  METHODS
  The effect of three new components in the system were examined: changes in the ED score ranges attracting payment, the percentage increase in the size of successive payment bands, and the total budget. The relationship between consultation rates (used as a proxy for workload) and UPA score was examined, together with changes in GP payments calculated nationally and by geographical area.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 11.6% of the population of England live in wards with a UPA score of 30 or more, qualifying for deprivation payments, and a similar proportion (11.4%) live in EDs with a UPA score of 20 or more. The larger percentage increases in the size of payments in successive ED UPA bands is supported by the modelled relationship between consultation rate and UPA score. Financially, under the new deprivations payment system, entitlement widens with 88% of practices receiving a payment. Overall, 74% of GPs gain and 13% lose (3% losing more than 1500 Pounds), with 13% receiving no payment.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The new ED system maps onto the previous system well. Moreover, it more finely discriminates between smaller areas of different relative deprivation and, thereby, targets payments more accurately.
authors.affiliation: Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice, Centre for Primary Care and Social Medicine, Imperial College School of Medicine, London.
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Bajekal
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Alves
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Jarman
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Hurwitz
mesh_terms: D002204:Capitation Fee; D003695:Delivery of Health Care / Q000191:economics; D004739:England; D005194:Family Practice / Q000191:economics*; D006801:Humans; D007349:Insurance, Health, Reimbursement; D018803:Models, Economic; D011204:Poverty Areas; D012111:Residence Characteristics; D013222:State Medicine / Q000191:economics; D019037:Urban Health Services / Q000191:economics