
doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5007
pmid: 23940292
A poll of general practitioners, recently splashed all over the newspapers, had most supporting charging patients up to £25 (€29; $39) a visit.1 The rationale runs like this. When something is free it isn’t valued. So patients don’t value doctors or our advice. Fees would stop the so called time wasters who abuse the system, reduce workload, free up time for deserving sick people, and, in the process, raise much needed income. A win-win, backslapping, punch-the-air and kiss-the-person-beside-you sort of good idea, isn’t it?⇑ Not really. Collecting money is expensive. In …
Fees, Medical, Financial Management, General Practice, Humans, State Medicine, United Kingdom
Fees, Medical, Financial Management, General Practice, Humans, State Medicine, United Kingdom
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
