Fragmented reality of healthcare: NHS vs Private GP

Unmasking the Manufactured Scandal: Are Private GPs the Real Culprits Behind NHS Waiting Times?

Nico Varela in Health & Wellness November 2025 • 4 min read.

"A deep dive into a Mail on Sunday article reveals a potential media fabrication, questioning the narrative around private GPs and their impact on NHS patient access."

During a busy shift in the acute medical unit, an intriguing headline in the Mail on Sunday caught my attention: '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.' Intrigued, I decided to investigate the story further.

The article made several bold claims, stating that many doctors work part-time for the NHS to see private patients, one in 30 GP consultations are privately paid for (netting doctors £550m a year), and a pressure group believed NHS patients would wait longer due to this.

But what was the basis for these claims? The Mail's report relied on a LaingBuisson consultancy report from 2013-14, which they themselves acknowledged as 'the latest available figures.' Why resurrect old data as if it were breaking news? The article even speculated that 'The number today could be higher still,' engaging in pure scaremongering. Interestingly, LaingBuisson publishes an annual report, and the most recent one didn't indicate a significant increase in private primary care.

Deconstructing the Media Narrative: Fact vs. Fiction in the GP Debate

Fragmented reality of healthcare: NHS vs Private GP

The Mail's article quoted the BMA and the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), highlighting unmanageable workloads and a workforce crisis in general practice, alongside the effects of longer wait times and unmanageable consultation numbers. However, the article conveniently ignored the context and intent behind the RCGP's comments, which were certainly not intended to excuse or enable GPs moonlighting in the private sector.

The 'pressure group' mentioned, Patient Concern, frequently contributes to Mail group articles and tends to reinforce existing editorial viewpoints. While Patient Concern is a small organization, admirably and openly free of commercial conflicts of interest, it represents only one perspective.

Outdated Data: The article used data from 2013-14, which may not accurately reflect the current state of private GP services.
Selective Quoting: The Mail selectively quoted the BMA and RCGP, omitting the context of their statements regarding workload and workforce challenges.
Uncorroborated Perspective: Reliance on a single 'pressure group' (Patient Concern) for claims without considering other viewpoints.

The Mail piece included a reference to the average pay of full-time GP partners, but neglected to mention that many GPs are salaried or work less than full time, earning far less. Furthermore, doctors' real-terms pay has been declining for years, a fact readily available in BMA media briefings. The article then pointed to GPs' supposedly high pay levels "when satisfaction with them has hit a record low." But is this really true?

The Real Story: Understanding the Nuances of GP Access

The real story lies in exploring the demand for more responsive, fee-paying, concierge-style access to general practice, bypassing the NHS. However, the Mail's story fails to provide a balanced and accurate portrayal of the situation.

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.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1136/bmj.k4167, Alternate LINK

Title: David Oliver: Private Gps—A Manufactured Media Scandal?

Subject: General Engineering

Journal: BMJ

Publisher: BMJ

Authors: David Oliver

Published: 2018-10-09

Everything You Need To Know

Why did the Mail on Sunday article's claims about private GPs and NHS waiting times raise concerns?

The concerns arose due to several issues. The Mail on Sunday article relied on outdated data from the LaingBuisson consultancy report, specifically from 2013-14, to support its claims. The article selectively quoted the BMA and the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), omitting the context of their statements about the workforce crisis and unmanageable workloads. Furthermore, it relied on a single perspective from the 'pressure group' Patient Concern, without considering other viewpoints. These issues collectively cast doubt on the accuracy and balance of the article's portrayal of private GPs and their impact on NHS waiting times.

What specific claims did the Mail on Sunday article make about private GPs and their impact on NHS patients?

The Mail on Sunday article made several key claims. It suggested that doctors work part-time for the NHS to see private patients, implied that a significant portion of GP consultations are privately paid, potentially netting doctors a substantial amount annually, and further stated that a 'pressure group' believed that NHS patients would experience longer waiting times as a result. However, the article's reliance on outdated data and selective quoting raises questions about the validity of these claims.

What role did the LaingBuisson consultancy report play in the Mail on Sunday's claims?

The Mail on Sunday article used the LaingBuisson consultancy report from 2013-14 as the basis for its claims. This report provided the 'latest available figures' according to the Mail. The article then used this old data to suggest that private GP services were negatively affecting NHS patient access. The fact that the article used data from this period and the omission of the updated LaingBuisson reports raises questions about the accuracy of the claims made.

How did the article misrepresent the views of the BMA and the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP)?

The Mail on Sunday selectively quoted the BMA and the RCGP to support its narrative. The article highlighted their comments about unmanageable workloads and a workforce crisis in general practice and longer wait times, however, it conveniently ignored the context and intent behind these statements. The context was not intended to excuse or enable GPs moonlighting in the private sector, which significantly altered the meaning and the point of these organizations' statements and concerns.

What does the article suggest about the real story regarding GP access and satisfaction?

The real story, according to the analysis, involves exploring the demand for more responsive, fee-paying, concierge-style access to general practice, which bypasses the NHS. The Mail on Sunday's portrayal fails to capture this nuanced reality. The article also pointed to GPs' high pay levels, 'when satisfaction with them has hit a record low.' The implications here are that the article potentially oversimplified and sensationalized the issues surrounding GP access and satisfaction by focusing on isolated claims and omitting critical context and alternative perspectives, which does not show the real reasons behind waiting times and the problems within the system.