LMC advice letter
Written: 03 September 2025
The LMC has written to all colleagues in relation to the DDRB Award for 2025/26, which has resulted in a further in-year uplift to Global Sum, ARRS allocation and Statement of Financial Entitlements (SFE) reimbursements.
A common public sector pay assumption of 2.8% was written into the 2025/26 GP Contract Agreement, after the Government acceptance of the DDRB Recommendation of 4% there has been a supplemental balancing uplift of 1.2% incorporated into further funding within the GP Contract. This has included a further uplift of £1.55 to Global Sum, bringing the total uplift for the 2025/26 financial year of £10.84 (9.64%). This is backdated to 1st April 2025, and colleagues should see updated payments within their August or September pay runs.
I confirm this uplift covered the “staff pay” and “contractor pay” [which is how partners drawings are categorised within the Global Sum income streams] elements of the Global Sum, comprising 84% of the total. The calculation of these costs between the contract takes into account associated on-costs.
Clearly an additional uplift of 1.2% [4% less the 2.8% assumption] does not meet the continuing cost pressures within General Practice. Indeed, the increase of £18.61 [17.77%] in Global Sum in two years 2024/25 and 2025/26 has been diluted by the continuing inflationary cost pressures within General Practice, particularly staff costs.
Clearly the % uplifts noted above are transferred to practices after the Carr-Hill capitation Formula is applied. This means the uplift practices receive will be affected by demographic (and other contributing metrics) details of their registered list. GPC England recognises the Carr-Hill Formula is no longer appropriate and renegotiating this will be a key part of achieving a new GMS Contract. There is, however, no alternative England-wide contractual option which allows an individualised practice uplift.
There have also been uplifts to the Statement of Financial Entitlements (SFE) reimbursement ceilings for claims relating to, for example, parental and sickness leave. The LMC has contacted ICBs to note that such claims made between now and April 2025 may also need to be uplifted, and practices may hear directly from thier ICBs about this.
GP employers will continue to pay 14.38% of staff pensionable pay to the NHS Business Service Authority with the remaining 6.3% funded centrally; this arrangement should continue for future financial years.
As GP colleagues will be aware, salaried GP colleagues should by default have been employed under the BMA Model Contract, referred in both GMS and [since 2015] PMS Contracts. However, it is open to the employer and/or employee to mutually agree variations in the terms and conditions within this Contract, which should however be “no less favourable”. This phrase is not further defined but is normally taken to suggest that key employment entitlements, such as holidays, CPD entitlement, and parental and other leave arrangements, should not be altered. Another key contractual term is the clause [within the BMA Model Contract] providing for an annual salary uplift linked to each year’s DDRB Award and a date at which the uplift should be applied. If no such date is stated, the default uplift date should be taken as 1st April each financial year. GP employers should apply a salary uplift as specified within the salaried GPs employment contract, which, in the case of the BMA Model Contract, will be a 4% uplift for 2025/26. If different salary arrangements are specified, these should be followed.
Some practices may have decided to award an interim pay uplift from April 2025 in anticipation of a final agreement and should take this into account when considering any further uplift.
In terms of other salaried employees, very few are likely to be on a national pay scale. It is a matter for partnerships to decide on salary uplifts / more general reward arrangements. However, it is recognised that many practice staff will see the agreed DDRB Award as a benchmark, GPC England has been in touch with, for example, the RCN to ensure partner organisations are aware of the reality of GP funding arrangements, and that, for the reasons noted above, the headline % uplift may not translate into the % uplift each individual practice receives.
I hope this update is helpful, if colleagues have any queries, please contact the LMC.
Dr Julius Parker, Chief Executive