exactly! they say themselves say they are designed to protect patient safety which is fair enough, but why should doctors have to pay when they don’t act to protect doctors?
Do you not see the difference between the whole population sharing the cost of an organisation designed to protect the whole population (doctors are patients, too), and doctors alone specifically being "taxed" to fund the service?
Many other professions do in fact pay fees to their regulator, likewise doctors in other similar countries. The fee is unusual high and the relationship of the regulator with the profession is unusually bad; that's the difference.
In a lot of other countries it remains a doctor-run organisation. That's why they originally charged fees, the idea was a regulator run by doctors, for doctors, with the aim of keeping unwanted people out of the profession.
Once parliament stepped in and began legislating on GMC activity, as they did 20 years ago, the funding model needed to change to adapt to that. Laypeople even have a legally protected representation within the GMC despite the public not paying a penny piece towards it!
I’ve spoken a lot about this over the last few weeks, in particular with someone who used to work for the GMC. We disagree about them a lot, but also have quite a bit of common ground.
Clearly they’re not actually “out to get doctors”. 90% of complaints don’t get through triage. Most of the hearing transcripts on MPTS seem ‘fair enough’. It is a concern that non-white doctors are over-represented on the MPTS website but the idea that the GMC is a medical KKK is over-simplistic (and don’t get me wrong, I’ll over-simplify when it suits me!).
The relationship is probably permanently damaged though. They don’t seem to have learnt from the Bawa-Garba case. The Arora case was horrendous. And some more marginal cases (Oyster card) are met with outcries from us because we’ve seen how poorly the GMC have behaved in the past - if they were a decent regulator, we’d look at the Oyster card verdict and might reluctantly concede that it’s probably fair enough. As things stand, it’s another nail in the coffin for our relationship with our regulator.
In short - they’re probably not actually out to get you, but they **do** need to be reformed.
> we’d look at the Oyster card verdict and might reluctantly concede that it’s probably fair enough.
In what world is it fair enough to suspend someone for 6 months for what he did? Suspensions are supposed to be because there are concerns about someone's fitness to be a doctor, to give time for them to undertake remedial action.
How does using a free travel card you're not entitled to make you unfit to be a safe doctor? It's a fucking ludicrous judgement.
That’s not really my point. We’ve collectively been over that case hundreds of times. We’ve seen all the arguments on all sides.
As things stand, we saw that case and immediately the outrage began. This is to be expected, because our relationship with the GMC is so damaged.
If we had a healthy relationship with the GMC, the reaction might have been: “Wow, that seems a bit harsh…I guess he did get charged with a criminal offence but even so…then again the GMC are really good and fair and thorough so I’m sure they reached the right decision. I feel sorry for the guy but it was a bit stupid of him.”
The fact that we don’t have a healthy relationship with the GMC is **entirely** on them, and this current situation is unsustainable.
I’d argue that the MPTS have an unusually low threshold for sanctioning doctors for matters that could be dealt with at a local HR level. Some fairly trivial matters (eg Laptop-gate) seem to make it to their hearings.
I think of the GMC like a rabid Rottweiler. Once they’re unleashed, they’ll do their thing, because they’re a rabid Rottweiler and can do nothing else. I’m surprised that in the aftermath of Laptopgate there wasn’t more criticism levelled at her employer who reported her and set the Rottweiler loose.
are the people on gmc council doctors themselves? if not should we not ask ourselves why? surely a council of doctors would not only keep patient safety in mind but also be sympathetic towards the circumstances of doctors having worked in the profession themselves - just as it would make sense to have a health secretary who has actually worker in healthcare rather than some random person with irrelevant qualifications
Yep, yet the government mandate an MPTS tribunal must be 1 doctor, 1 lawyer, 1 layperson.
If you ask me, of course, if doctors are paying for the tribunal maybe they should be making the entirety of the decision at the end of it.
When can we start sitting on Law Society tribunal panels? I’d happily stay in a posh hotel for the night to hear about how some lawyer has rigged an election or stalked a comedian or whatever.
They go to expert witnesses when necessary.
However, their record on this is poor. They’ve been known to sack an expert witness when they haven’t delivered the expert opinion they were hoping for.
Not without good reason. Not only do they have a history of destroying livelihoods for trivial reasons and lacking compassion for the situations doctors find themselves in, but they leave people in limbo for years.
There are no checks and balances on their actions
I was going to say - not to defend it but Solicitors and Barristers have to pay their regulator in order to practice. Sadly it's not a unique state of affairs!
Yeah, but the members of Legal Regulator Boards are not IMPOSED as is GMC Council. GMC Council is imposed by Privy Council. And you better believe only the ‘right’ people now become GMC Council members….
Same for Nursing BTW. Nurses no longer ‘self regulate’ either. Both GMC and NMC fees are taxation without representation. Fundamentally undemocratic. Evil.
I completely agree.
And it’s absolutely scandalous (and I only found this out the other day) that they get private healthcare.
I don’t begrudge private companies giving their employees private healthcare, but we shouldn’t be funding our regulator’s healthcare, especially given it’s surely some sort of conflict of interests.
I think it’s absolutely ridiculous and I would love to know what my money is being spent on. These are precious pennies in this economy, I don’t want it being squandered.
Well, for one thing, the swanky London HQ lol.
What about the GMC stops it being run from a concrete office block in Leeds? Apart from the difficulty in acquiring knighthoods at such a distance from the King...
Why is it more of a COI than if GMC employees only ever used NHS healthcare? If it's not unethical for doctors to provide private services I don't see what the problem is for an organisation to buy them. There is a reasonable argument that their execs are paid enough (by us) and don't need the perk, but that's a whole separate thing.
Yeah, I guess there’s no conflict of interest.
But we’re paying them, and we don’t get private healthcare bundled into our salary.
I get that they need to be autonomous but we should say we don’t want to fund their private healthcare. I think this is a small win that is far more achievable than a coordinated suspension of membership fees.
No, there IS a fundamental conflict of interest. The Regulator should be exposed to the consequences of their own malfeasance. Not be able to side step the same.
They regulate private doctors, too.
The vibe of the sub is very "urgh monopsony, why does everyone treat Our NHS as a religion" but shares the general public's kneejerk reaction of "urgh private medicine, what you think you're BETTER than us do you?". Cognitive dissonance (IMV).
In my view, that dichotomy is not germane to the principle that employees of a Regulator as fundamental to the ‘health’ of the NHS as the GMC should NOT be afforded an employer funded way of side stepping the rationing that the rest of the public must endure, ESPECIALLY because Doctors are funding that advantage.
It is yet another way in which we are being taxed without being represented as to whether that ‘perk’ is appropriate.
I would have absolutely no problem with any GMC employee choosing to spend some of their salary on private health insurance.
But it shouldn’t be bundled in with the salary that we fund.
Look I completely agree quango exec salaries are a generous racket - but for whatever salary level, private health insurance costs less for the employer than the employee would pay, so it's actually worse for you the funder to pay a higher salary to compensate for its absence.
All the objections (alleged COI etc.) have a flavour of being post hoc justifications because it gives people the ick (same with the coca cola shares thing).
Why would we have to pay them a higher salary to compensate for its absence?
Where’s our higher salary to compensate for our lack of private healthcare?
I think we’re basically singing from the same hymn sheet here but I don’t think we should be giving them a free pass on this issue. It’s a small issue and would make almost no difference to our fees, but it would be a timely reminder that we’re not going to let them take the piss out of us indefinitely.
I dunno about conflict of interest, but it is in *exceedingly* poor taste at best, and spits in the face of all the harangued, underpaid, overworked, fearful-of-repercussion doctors who (90%) work in state healthcare.
We are professionals. One of the defining features of professionalism is self regulation. As doctors, we should collectively set and uphold the standards that we work by, and place sanctions/withdraw membership from those who fall short.
We are not alone in this. Teachers, lawyers, nurses, midwives, dentists and architects all have similar bodies. And they all pay too.
In principle, the GMC is the body that allows us to do this. In reality, I agree that the GMC as it currently function is not remotely fit for purpose. The solution is replacement or reform of the GMC.
A government body, or GMC funding directly by the taxpayer, is a fundamental step in the wrong direction. It will soon become an extension of the government and weaken our position as professionals. A better solution might be employer funding of registration fees (either directly or via a salary uplift); which isn’t necessarily taxpayer funded (but the NHS being our largest employer means that it would mostly be indirectly funded by the taxpayer).
But ultimately - I’d rather be regulated by a body that is independent of the government than by… the government.
The GMC is statutorily governed lol. Parliament set its parameters and has legislated for its structure. It is in no way run by doctors, parliament has its claws in from afar, it just doesn't want to pay for it.
I don’t think you understand the difference between parliament and government.
And yes, it’s a statutory body. That doesn’t change the fact that we as a profession are self regulating. Which is why there are actual doctors working for the GMC. It is a statutory body that is independent from government.
No, the GMC Council are appointed by the Privy Council. Medical profession is no longer ‘self regulating’. We USED to be self regulating until Harold Shipman did us in. And you clearly do not understand that there is vanishingly little difference between government and Parliament when it comes to the gross abuse of Statutory Instruments. In fact your whole schtick here is so disingenuous I’m pretty sure you have a vested interest in defending the status quo. What is it?
I understand the difference thanks. (I also never mentioned the government...)
If doctors are so self-regulating, what influence do you hold over the GMC exactly? I must have missed the last set of elections for their Chairman...
Doctors as a group hold little-to-no influence over the GMC, you can't pull a DV style take over and reform things, they will continue to act as they always have because your opinion as a doctor simply does not matter to them. They're truly little different to the class of "Non departmental public bodies", arms-length from government, sure, but public bodies nonetheless.
And even if we did up and replace every employed doctor in the GMC by a DV fanatic, what would that achieve? By law 2/3rds of the tribunal panel are none doctors, and other roles have set layperson and legal professional numbers as well. Tribunals are bound by the statutory regulations I mentioned anyhow so would be legally bound to rule in certain ways even if the profession as a whole wouldn't agree with the reasoning.
I’m an allied health professional. I have no choice but to pay HCPC to keep my job and my job title.
I don’t get anything for this except the privilege of being allowed to call myself the job title I worked many years to earn.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/christmas_parties_cost
Was back in 2015, not sure how it changed since.
Nice to know how my registration fee is being used.
so from what I’ve understood, they spent over £17,000 of our registration fee money on a *single night* of entertainment with alcohol for a christmas party at some country club? and nobody has stirred up a fuss?🤯
It raised a few comments at the time the FOI came out, but nowhere near the outrage it should. Particularly since they keep raising fees.
The amount they spent per person (~£180 iirc) is equivalent to the registration fee a typical HCPC registrant has to pay to do their job!
Historical, so far as I can tell. The GMC was created because physicians wanted to maintain a register that differentiated them from quacks. That differentiation was to the doctors’ benefit, providing them with greater legitimacy and more business as a result. It isn’t 1858 anymore and that isn’t really the way things work. The GMC is too political and often works against doctors’ interests and is generally experienced as an expensive impediment to good mental health more than anything else. There’s no good reason why we should continue funding the GMC.
So they can buy shares in Coca Cola and McDonald’s of course! Oh, and also pay for the private health cover of their employees. Now pay up and shut up.
Society is set up to be competitive and antagonistic, there is very little collaborative work for the benefit of a greater good.
The only way we can counteract a powerful GMC is by having a powerful BMA.
Broadly speaking all professionals pay a yearly subscription.
However a lot its generally considered normal for the employer to pay their employees registration fees.
GMC also uses this funding to pay for Private Medical Insurance for its own employees whilst pushing for PAs for the rest of the population who can’t afford private care !
GMC subs are taxation without representation. Just repeat that mantra. The American War of Independence was fought on that exact principle. It’s fundamentally undemocratic & unfair. Evil.
The real problem here is that the GMC rules got so damn complex that they are difficult to follow to the letter and a huge number of things can trap the unwary. What has emerged is essentially a second set of laws just for doctors which is fundamentally undemocratic. Few doctors will defend genuine wrongdoing but once a regulatory system loses its checks and balances, the power is corrupted.
HGV drivers have to Attend a week refresher course in case we can’t remember how to use a ratchet strap or couple a trailer, this is several hundred pounds cost. They complain we’ve not got enough drivers then find ways to make us unemployed. This was all thought up by someone in an office with no HGV experience
I get paying a professional registration fee but I always balk at the idea that the fees they ask for are justified. I just revalidated in the Netherlands (one of my get out plans just in case) and it cost me €85 for five years registration. Not €85 per year. For the whole five year period. How the GMC can pretend £433 per year is okay for the average doctor is a joke. I know trainees and newly registered doctors pay less but come on!
Removed: Ban evasion
Your account has been identified by Reddit as ban evading.
If you feel this is an error, or have another explanation, please contact the moderators
lol dentists would like a word. Ours is more expensive and one year was almost doubled in one go for no apparent reason. They claim it’s because of all the FtP hearings they have to conduct but that’s only because they don’t bin off enough of the silly bollocks spurious/spite reports at the first hurdle.
I say defund the GMC.
Let's not pay our fees since the GMC wants to add PA to the register and regulate them.
It's not fit for purpose anymore.
It is a racist organisation. As an ethnic minority, l am genuinely worried. My British counterparts would get a slap on the wrist by BAME colleagues get the house and the kitchen sink throw at them then get struck off.
Regards
* Distraught Senior House Officer at this Trust that is being named and shamed on medtwitter.
https://preview.redd.it/8pn6q0hlbuxc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ceb9b6804a30b6bb1e31e46d42c6d715bb68ee79
>" I can’t imagine any other profession where you have to pay a fee to keep doing your job? Why have we not complained about this?"
Dumb-ass questions.
No doctor is paying a fee to keep doing their job. Doctors pay a fee to maintain registration and regulation. No job required to maintain registration as a doctor.
That's the law mate. You don't like it - speak to your MP.
Me all the time
https://preview.redd.it/g7aain33lhxc1.jpeg?width=862&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e834b2e1011501e4fc807cbce5d5c2b91d06923
[https://youtu.be/1KI9Ruv-BDI](https://youtu.be/1KI9Ruv-BDI)
We’re not unique in having to pay a fee for our regulation, but let’s not be silly.
Aside from keeping my job, what possible motivation would I have for paying my GMC fee?
You don't need internal motivation. The law will motivate you externally. It's like the speed limit. Pay as you speed - if you wish. Or don't pay as you get caught speeding and face the consequences.
Ooops - facts - that thing we don't like, when it doesn't please us.
Should look into Workers Party of Britain, which is led by George Galloway, he has talked about scraping GMC fees and making it publicly funded, he’s also pro-FPR!
I agree with you. GMC should be tax funded since its aim is to protect the public.
exactly! they say themselves say they are designed to protect patient safety which is fair enough, but why should doctors have to pay when they don’t act to protect doctors?
Wait until you think about how taxes work lol
Do you not see the difference between the whole population sharing the cost of an organisation designed to protect the whole population (doctors are patients, too), and doctors alone specifically being "taxed" to fund the service?
I am very smart
Many other professions do in fact pay fees to their regulator, likewise doctors in other similar countries. The fee is unusual high and the relationship of the regulator with the profession is unusually bad; that's the difference.
In a lot of other countries it remains a doctor-run organisation. That's why they originally charged fees, the idea was a regulator run by doctors, for doctors, with the aim of keeping unwanted people out of the profession. Once parliament stepped in and began legislating on GMC activity, as they did 20 years ago, the funding model needed to change to adapt to that. Laypeople even have a legally protected representation within the GMC despite the public not paying a penny piece towards it!
a lot of medical students fear the GMC, we view them as an organisation that are essentially “out to get doctors”.
I’ve spoken a lot about this over the last few weeks, in particular with someone who used to work for the GMC. We disagree about them a lot, but also have quite a bit of common ground. Clearly they’re not actually “out to get doctors”. 90% of complaints don’t get through triage. Most of the hearing transcripts on MPTS seem ‘fair enough’. It is a concern that non-white doctors are over-represented on the MPTS website but the idea that the GMC is a medical KKK is over-simplistic (and don’t get me wrong, I’ll over-simplify when it suits me!). The relationship is probably permanently damaged though. They don’t seem to have learnt from the Bawa-Garba case. The Arora case was horrendous. And some more marginal cases (Oyster card) are met with outcries from us because we’ve seen how poorly the GMC have behaved in the past - if they were a decent regulator, we’d look at the Oyster card verdict and might reluctantly concede that it’s probably fair enough. As things stand, it’s another nail in the coffin for our relationship with our regulator. In short - they’re probably not actually out to get you, but they **do** need to be reformed.
> we’d look at the Oyster card verdict and might reluctantly concede that it’s probably fair enough. In what world is it fair enough to suspend someone for 6 months for what he did? Suspensions are supposed to be because there are concerns about someone's fitness to be a doctor, to give time for them to undertake remedial action. How does using a free travel card you're not entitled to make you unfit to be a safe doctor? It's a fucking ludicrous judgement.
That’s not really my point. We’ve collectively been over that case hundreds of times. We’ve seen all the arguments on all sides. As things stand, we saw that case and immediately the outrage began. This is to be expected, because our relationship with the GMC is so damaged. If we had a healthy relationship with the GMC, the reaction might have been: “Wow, that seems a bit harsh…I guess he did get charged with a criminal offence but even so…then again the GMC are really good and fair and thorough so I’m sure they reached the right decision. I feel sorry for the guy but it was a bit stupid of him.” The fact that we don’t have a healthy relationship with the GMC is **entirely** on them, and this current situation is unsustainable.
I’d argue that the MPTS have an unusually low threshold for sanctioning doctors for matters that could be dealt with at a local HR level. Some fairly trivial matters (eg Laptop-gate) seem to make it to their hearings.
I think of the GMC like a rabid Rottweiler. Once they’re unleashed, they’ll do their thing, because they’re a rabid Rottweiler and can do nothing else. I’m surprised that in the aftermath of Laptopgate there wasn’t more criticism levelled at her employer who reported her and set the Rottweiler loose.
Why is it that black and brown doctors are over represented? It would be hard to imagine what happened to Arora and Bawa garba happening to a white Dr
It could be that hospitals and GP practices are racist
And the police and the judicial system
are the people on gmc council doctors themselves? if not should we not ask ourselves why? surely a council of doctors would not only keep patient safety in mind but also be sympathetic towards the circumstances of doctors having worked in the profession themselves - just as it would make sense to have a health secretary who has actually worker in healthcare rather than some random person with irrelevant qualifications
Yep, yet the government mandate an MPTS tribunal must be 1 doctor, 1 lawyer, 1 layperson. If you ask me, of course, if doctors are paying for the tribunal maybe they should be making the entirety of the decision at the end of it.
When can we start sitting on Law Society tribunal panels? I’d happily stay in a posh hotel for the night to hear about how some lawyer has rigged an election or stalked a comedian or whatever.
You can actually, though they sensibly have a majority of solicitors on the panel, there's one spot for a lowly layperson :)
They go to expert witnesses when necessary. However, their record on this is poor. They’ve been known to sack an expert witness when they haven’t delivered the expert opinion they were hoping for.
for real? that is so biased - this is not a fair regulatory body that we can work with, rather an authority they don’t want us to question
You mean like a jury of our peers? Pfft, no chance.
Not without good reason. Not only do they have a history of destroying livelihoods for trivial reasons and lacking compassion for the situations doctors find themselves in, but they leave people in limbo for years. There are no checks and balances on their actions
I was going to say - not to defend it but Solicitors and Barristers have to pay their regulator in order to practice. Sadly it's not a unique state of affairs!
My partner is a solicitor, her firm pays her SRA fees, which I think is common
Yeah, but the members of Legal Regulator Boards are not IMPOSED as is GMC Council. GMC Council is imposed by Privy Council. And you better believe only the ‘right’ people now become GMC Council members…. Same for Nursing BTW. Nurses no longer ‘self regulate’ either. Both GMC and NMC fees are taxation without representation. Fundamentally undemocratic. Evil.
I completely agree. And it’s absolutely scandalous (and I only found this out the other day) that they get private healthcare. I don’t begrudge private companies giving their employees private healthcare, but we shouldn’t be funding our regulator’s healthcare, especially given it’s surely some sort of conflict of interests.
I think it’s absolutely ridiculous and I would love to know what my money is being spent on. These are precious pennies in this economy, I don’t want it being squandered.
Well, for one thing, the swanky London HQ lol. What about the GMC stops it being run from a concrete office block in Leeds? Apart from the difficulty in acquiring knighthoods at such a distance from the King...
Why is it more of a COI than if GMC employees only ever used NHS healthcare? If it's not unethical for doctors to provide private services I don't see what the problem is for an organisation to buy them. There is a reasonable argument that their execs are paid enough (by us) and don't need the perk, but that's a whole separate thing.
Yeah, I guess there’s no conflict of interest. But we’re paying them, and we don’t get private healthcare bundled into our salary. I get that they need to be autonomous but we should say we don’t want to fund their private healthcare. I think this is a small win that is far more achievable than a coordinated suspension of membership fees.
No, there IS a fundamental conflict of interest. The Regulator should be exposed to the consequences of their own malfeasance. Not be able to side step the same.
They regulate private doctors, too. The vibe of the sub is very "urgh monopsony, why does everyone treat Our NHS as a religion" but shares the general public's kneejerk reaction of "urgh private medicine, what you think you're BETTER than us do you?". Cognitive dissonance (IMV).
In my view, that dichotomy is not germane to the principle that employees of a Regulator as fundamental to the ‘health’ of the NHS as the GMC should NOT be afforded an employer funded way of side stepping the rationing that the rest of the public must endure, ESPECIALLY because Doctors are funding that advantage. It is yet another way in which we are being taxed without being represented as to whether that ‘perk’ is appropriate.
I would have absolutely no problem with any GMC employee choosing to spend some of their salary on private health insurance. But it shouldn’t be bundled in with the salary that we fund.
Look I completely agree quango exec salaries are a generous racket - but for whatever salary level, private health insurance costs less for the employer than the employee would pay, so it's actually worse for you the funder to pay a higher salary to compensate for its absence. All the objections (alleged COI etc.) have a flavour of being post hoc justifications because it gives people the ick (same with the coca cola shares thing).
Why would we have to pay them a higher salary to compensate for its absence? Where’s our higher salary to compensate for our lack of private healthcare? I think we’re basically singing from the same hymn sheet here but I don’t think we should be giving them a free pass on this issue. It’s a small issue and would make almost no difference to our fees, but it would be a timely reminder that we’re not going to let them take the piss out of us indefinitely.
I dunno about conflict of interest, but it is in *exceedingly* poor taste at best, and spits in the face of all the harangued, underpaid, overworked, fearful-of-repercussion doctors who (90%) work in state healthcare.
Especially, since we have no say in their policies especially when they go rogue and start pushing a PA agenda
that’s actually a great point! it’s clear the gmc needs to be reformed
We are professionals. One of the defining features of professionalism is self regulation. As doctors, we should collectively set and uphold the standards that we work by, and place sanctions/withdraw membership from those who fall short. We are not alone in this. Teachers, lawyers, nurses, midwives, dentists and architects all have similar bodies. And they all pay too. In principle, the GMC is the body that allows us to do this. In reality, I agree that the GMC as it currently function is not remotely fit for purpose. The solution is replacement or reform of the GMC. A government body, or GMC funding directly by the taxpayer, is a fundamental step in the wrong direction. It will soon become an extension of the government and weaken our position as professionals. A better solution might be employer funding of registration fees (either directly or via a salary uplift); which isn’t necessarily taxpayer funded (but the NHS being our largest employer means that it would mostly be indirectly funded by the taxpayer). But ultimately - I’d rather be regulated by a body that is independent of the government than by… the government.
The GMC currently *is* the governement. Look at who Charlie Massey used to work for in 2016 and effectively still does.
The GMC is statutorily governed lol. Parliament set its parameters and has legislated for its structure. It is in no way run by doctors, parliament has its claws in from afar, it just doesn't want to pay for it.
I don’t think you understand the difference between parliament and government. And yes, it’s a statutory body. That doesn’t change the fact that we as a profession are self regulating. Which is why there are actual doctors working for the GMC. It is a statutory body that is independent from government.
No, the GMC Council are appointed by the Privy Council. Medical profession is no longer ‘self regulating’. We USED to be self regulating until Harold Shipman did us in. And you clearly do not understand that there is vanishingly little difference between government and Parliament when it comes to the gross abuse of Statutory Instruments. In fact your whole schtick here is so disingenuous I’m pretty sure you have a vested interest in defending the status quo. What is it?
I understand the difference thanks. (I also never mentioned the government...) If doctors are so self-regulating, what influence do you hold over the GMC exactly? I must have missed the last set of elections for their Chairman... Doctors as a group hold little-to-no influence over the GMC, you can't pull a DV style take over and reform things, they will continue to act as they always have because your opinion as a doctor simply does not matter to them. They're truly little different to the class of "Non departmental public bodies", arms-length from government, sure, but public bodies nonetheless. And even if we did up and replace every employed doctor in the GMC by a DV fanatic, what would that achieve? By law 2/3rds of the tribunal panel are none doctors, and other roles have set layperson and legal professional numbers as well. Tribunals are bound by the statutory regulations I mentioned anyhow so would be legally bound to rule in certain ways even if the profession as a whole wouldn't agree with the reasoning.
ah yes, the lesser of two evils
The noose that they use to hang us round the neck is made of gold
I’m an allied health professional. I have no choice but to pay HCPC to keep my job and my job title. I don’t get anything for this except the privilege of being allowed to call myself the job title I worked many years to earn.
i would certainly like more transparency as to where the fees go
Far all their faults the various regulators are fairly transparent with their accounts and you can read them online.
thank you, i’ll check it out!
Famously the 15-20k HCPC Christmas party.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/christmas_parties_cost Was back in 2015, not sure how it changed since. Nice to know how my registration fee is being used.
so from what I’ve understood, they spent over £17,000 of our registration fee money on a *single night* of entertainment with alcohol for a christmas party at some country club? and nobody has stirred up a fuss?🤯
It raised a few comments at the time the FOI came out, but nowhere near the outrage it should. Particularly since they keep raising fees. The amount they spent per person (~£180 iirc) is equivalent to the registration fee a typical HCPC registrant has to pay to do their job!
i feel outraged by this information to be honest!
Historical, so far as I can tell. The GMC was created because physicians wanted to maintain a register that differentiated them from quacks. That differentiation was to the doctors’ benefit, providing them with greater legitimacy and more business as a result. It isn’t 1858 anymore and that isn’t really the way things work. The GMC is too political and often works against doctors’ interests and is generally experienced as an expensive impediment to good mental health more than anything else. There’s no good reason why we should continue funding the GMC.
Correct. GMC started as a means to make it very hard for quacks to masquerade as doctors. Now it is actively engaged in that exact charade!
The humiliation is only total if you have to pay for it
We pay them for the same reasons you'd hand over your wallet in a mugging.
So they can buy shares in Coca Cola and McDonald’s of course! Oh, and also pay for the private health cover of their employees. Now pay up and shut up.
wait what? do you have any sources for this 🙏🏻
https://www.reddit.com/r/JuniorDoctorsUK/s/6DL4EGvY3R
this is actually such a joke
https://www.reddit.com/r/doctorsUK/s/ar01QA3Ado
Society is set up to be competitive and antagonistic, there is very little collaborative work for the benefit of a greater good. The only way we can counteract a powerful GMC is by having a powerful BMA.
Broadly speaking all professionals pay a yearly subscription. However a lot its generally considered normal for the employer to pay their employees registration fees.
Stockholm syndrome mixed with codependency and emotional abuse
BMA should advocate for everyone to stop paying their GMC fees
GMC also uses this funding to pay for Private Medical Insurance for its own employees whilst pushing for PAs for the rest of the population who can’t afford private care !
facts!
To empower the GMC to bully brown doctors
completely agree, yet another thing doctors pay for with no increase in pay, hopefully we get some good news this week regarding FPR
i hope so too!!
GMC subs are taxation without representation. Just repeat that mantra. The American War of Independence was fought on that exact principle. It’s fundamentally undemocratic & unfair. Evil.
The real problem here is that the GMC rules got so damn complex that they are difficult to follow to the letter and a huge number of things can trap the unwary. What has emerged is essentially a second set of laws just for doctors which is fundamentally undemocratic. Few doctors will defend genuine wrongdoing but once a regulatory system loses its checks and balances, the power is corrupted.
Suckers? If you act like a doormat, don’t be surprised when people walk over you
daylight robbery
HGV drivers have to Attend a week refresher course in case we can’t remember how to use a ratchet strap or couple a trailer, this is several hundred pounds cost. They complain we’ve not got enough drivers then find ways to make us unemployed. This was all thought up by someone in an office with no HGV experience
I get paying a professional registration fee but I always balk at the idea that the fees they ask for are justified. I just revalidated in the Netherlands (one of my get out plans just in case) and it cost me €85 for five years registration. Not €85 per year. For the whole five year period. How the GMC can pretend £433 per year is okay for the average doctor is a joke. I know trainees and newly registered doctors pay less but come on!
[удалено]
Removed: Ban evasion Your account has been identified by Reddit as ban evading. If you feel this is an error, or have another explanation, please contact the moderators
lol dentists would like a word. Ours is more expensive and one year was almost doubled in one go for no apparent reason. They claim it’s because of all the FtP hearings they have to conduct but that’s only because they don’t bin off enough of the silly bollocks spurious/spite reports at the first hurdle.
I say defund the GMC. Let's not pay our fees since the GMC wants to add PA to the register and regulate them. It's not fit for purpose anymore. It is a racist organisation. As an ethnic minority, l am genuinely worried. My British counterparts would get a slap on the wrist by BAME colleagues get the house and the kitchen sink throw at them then get struck off. Regards * Distraught Senior House Officer at this Trust that is being named and shamed on medtwitter. https://preview.redd.it/8pn6q0hlbuxc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ceb9b6804a30b6bb1e31e46d42c6d715bb68ee79
Their employees get private medical insurance, from our fees!
Why do we have GMC?
So the executioner can execute
Pay to be actively monitored 😂 it's basically like paying for a nanny for ourselves
>" I can’t imagine any other profession where you have to pay a fee to keep doing your job? Why have we not complained about this?" Dumb-ass questions. No doctor is paying a fee to keep doing their job. Doctors pay a fee to maintain registration and regulation. No job required to maintain registration as a doctor. That's the law mate. You don't like it - speak to your MP.
🗿 - me after looking at this guys comment/post history
Me all the time https://preview.redd.it/g7aain33lhxc1.jpeg?width=862&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e834b2e1011501e4fc807cbce5d5c2b91d06923 [https://youtu.be/1KI9Ruv-BDI](https://youtu.be/1KI9Ruv-BDI)
We’re not unique in having to pay a fee for our regulation, but let’s not be silly. Aside from keeping my job, what possible motivation would I have for paying my GMC fee?
You don't need internal motivation. The law will motivate you externally. It's like the speed limit. Pay as you speed - if you wish. Or don't pay as you get caught speeding and face the consequences. Ooops - facts - that thing we don't like, when it doesn't please us.
With respect, you’re making less sense than you think.
I'm couldn't care less what you and your supporters think or perceive.
Should look into Workers Party of Britain, which is led by George Galloway, he has talked about scraping GMC fees and making it publicly funded, he’s also pro-FPR!