RESEARCHERS at the University of York have revealed that primary care funding in England is not distributed according to local health needs.

The study suggests that GP practices in London, where the population is relatively young, receive disproportionately more funding, despite dealing with the lowest level of health needs in the country.

Research was based on 19 well-recorded chronic conditions and the study found London has a median of 0.38 health conditions per patient, while the North East and North West of England have 0.59 conditions per patient and 0.55 conditions per patient, the highest and second highest health needs in England respectively.

Co-author of the paper, Tim Doran, Professor of Health Policy at The University of York, said: “The present formula for GP funding does not provide an equitable distribution of resources across the NHS. It is especially unfair to the North East and North West of England.”

The research team, from The Universities of York, Manchester, Keele, Michigan and Dundee, have also revealed that when health care needs, deprivation and age are taken into account, rural areas receive £36 more compared to urban areas, per patient each year.

The £36 figure is more than a quarter of the average annual primary care spend per patient in England, which was £134 in 2015-16, excluding the cost of prescriptions and drug dispensing.

Practices in rural England tend to look after an older but relatively healthier, more affluent and smaller population, they say, while enjoying similar levels of staffing, when compared to the more hard-pressed practices in urban areas.

The study is the first to evaluate if primary care funding in 2015/16 matched health care needs at geographical areas with an average of 1500 people.

The team examined data from 7,779 GP practices in England, covering 56,924,424 people, over 99 per cent of the population registered with primary care, and publish their findings in the journal BMC Medicine.

Researchers say the current funding arrangement for GP practices is unreliable and out of date.

The formula, they argue, may excessively favour practices in rural areas, while patient need is based on a single dimension of morbidity - Long-Standing Illness - from the 1998-2000 Health Survey for England.

Numerous calls have been made over the last decade for the formula to be reviewed, and it is expected to be reviewed by the Government this year.