Doctor's office with NHS and private care revolving door

The Private GP Myth: Unveiling the Manufactured Scandal in Healthcare

Beau Callahan in Health & Wellness June 2025 • 5 min read.

"Are private GPs really to blame for NHS woes? A critical look at the media's manufactured outrage."

In an era where healthcare access is a constant topic of public debate, a recent article in the Mail on Sunday ignited controversy with its headline: "Can't get in to see your doctor? Highly paid GPs accused of driving up waiting times by favouring lucrative private clients over NHS patients." This bold statement raises critical questions about the role of private general practitioners (GPs) within the broader healthcare system and whether they are truly contributing to the strain on the National Health Service (NHS).

The article's key points included allegations that many doctors work part-time for the NHS while dedicating time to private patients, that one in 30 GP consultations are privately paid, netting doctors £550 million annually, and that a pressure group suggested NHS patients would inevitably face longer wait times as a result. Such claims, if substantiated, could significantly impact public trust in healthcare providers and the NHS.

However, a closer examination reveals that the Mail's assertions are based on a LaingBuisson consultancy report from 2013-14. This raises questions about the timeliness and relevance of the information. Why has the Mail dusted off old data as if it were breaking news? This article will critically assess the claims made against private GPs, examine the evidence, and provide a more balanced perspective on the complexities of healthcare access in the UK.

Deconstructing the Data: What the Numbers Really Say

Doctor's office with NHS and private care revolving door

The Mail's article relies heavily on a LaingBuisson consultancy report from 2013-14, which it presents as “the latest available figures.” This claim is immediately problematic. Healthcare is a rapidly evolving field, and data from nearly a decade ago may not accurately reflect the current landscape. The Mail acknowledges that the number of private consultations "could be higher still" today, but this is pure speculation and scaremongering. LaingBuisson produces annual reports, and the most recent ones do not indicate a significant surge in private primary care.

The article also selectively quotes the BMA and the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) to highlight unmanageable workloads and a workforce crisis in general practice. While these issues are genuine concerns, the Mail omits the context and intent behind the RCGP's comments. The RCGP's warnings about longer waits and unmanageable consultation numbers were not intended as a smokescreen for GPs moonlighting in the private sector. Instead, they were a call for systemic improvements to address the root causes of these problems.

Outdated Data: The Mail's reliance on a 2013-14 report raises questions about the relevance of the information.
Selective Quoting: The article selectively quotes the BMA and RCGP, omitting the context of their statements.
Misrepresentation: The "pressure group" cited in the article, Patient Concern, is portrayed as an objective source, but it is a small organization with a specific viewpoint.

The Mail's reference to the average pay of full-time GP partners is misleading because it neglects to mention that many GPs are salaried or work less than full time, earning significantly less. Furthermore, doctors' real-terms pay has been steadily declining for several years, as documented in BMA media briefings. The article's attempt to link GPs' supposedly high pay with low patient satisfaction is also questionable. The 2018 British Social Attitudes survey did reveal increasing concern and falling satisfaction with access and waiting times in general practice. However, it also showed that doctors and nurses remain at the top of the public trust league, and that there is continued support for the NHS and its staff, along with a recognition that workforce and funding shortages are key concerns.

The Real Story: Demand and Access

Ultimately, there is an interesting and important story to be written about the increasing demand for more responsive, fee-paying, concierge-style access to general practice, bypassing the NHS. However, the Mail's story isn't it. By selectively using outdated data, misrepresenting the views of professional organizations, and focusing on sensationalism rather than substance, the Mail has manufactured a media scandal that distracts from the real challenges facing the NHS. The real story lies in addressing workforce shortages, funding gaps, and systemic inefficiencies to ensure that all patients have timely access to quality healthcare, regardless of their ability to pay.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

Is it accurate to blame private General Practitioners (GPs) for the increased NHS waiting times based on current data?

No, it is not accurate. Claims suggesting private GPs are significantly contributing to NHS waiting times are largely based on a LaingBuisson consultancy report from 2013-14. This data is outdated and doesn't reflect the current healthcare landscape. While the British Medical Association (BMA) and the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) have raised concerns about workload and workforce crises, those concerns were a call for systemic improvements and not an indictment of GPs working in the private sector.

How does the information presented by the Mail on Sunday regarding General Practitioners' (GPs) pay and its effect on patient satisfaction hold up under scrutiny?

The Mail on Sunday's portrayal of General Practitioners' (GPs) pay is misleading. The article highlights the average pay of full-time GP partners but doesn't mention that many GPs are salaried or work part-time, earning significantly less. Additionally, the article selectively uses data to create a narrative that links higher GP pay to lower patient satisfaction. In reality, there is declining real-terms pay for doctors, and while public concern about access and waiting times has increased, surveys such as the 2018 British Social Attitudes survey indicate continued support for the NHS and its staff, along with recognition that workforce and funding shortages are key concerns.

What are some of the real underlying factors that contribute to the challenges currently faced by the National Health Service (NHS)?

The real challenges facing the National Health Service (NHS) stem from several interconnected issues such as workforce shortages, funding gaps, and systemic inefficiencies. The British Medical Association (BMA) and Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) both point to unmanageable workloads and a workforce crisis. These factors affect timely access to quality healthcare more than the actions of private GPs. Addressing these systemic issues is crucial to improving healthcare access for all patients.

Why is it important to consider the source and timeliness of information when evaluating claims about the performance and impact of healthcare providers like General Practitioners (GPs)?

Considering the source and timeliness of information is crucial because the healthcare landscape evolves rapidly. Using outdated data, like the LaingBuisson consultancy report from 2013-14, to assess the current impact of private General Practitioners (GPs) on the NHS is misleading. Healthcare policies, patient demographics, and technological advancements change over time, making older data less relevant. Additionally, understanding the potential biases or agendas of the source, such as Patient Concern, is important for interpreting the information accurately. Accurate and up-to-date data is necessary for making informed decisions about healthcare policies and practices.

What implications does the debate around private General Practitioners (GPs) have on public trust in the National Health Service (NHS) and healthcare professionals?

The debate around private General Practitioners (GPs) can significantly impact public trust in the National Health Service (NHS) and healthcare professionals. Sensationalized media coverage, like the Mail on Sunday's article, can erode public confidence by suggesting that doctors prioritize private clients over NHS patients. This can lead to increased skepticism about the motives of healthcare providers and the overall fairness of the healthcare system. The 2018 British Social Attitudes survey showed declining satisfaction with access and waiting times. Maintaining transparency, addressing systemic issues such as workforce shortages and funding gaps, and ensuring timely access to quality care are crucial for preserving and rebuilding public trust in the NHS and its staff.