I see the other side of this. Last year, my very good GP practice held a consultation exercise with all of us patients because of the issues caused by covering a very large Care Home near the surgery.
First, they had no option to refuse to provide care on the grounds of capacity-as the residents were within the practice boundary, they had to take them.
The Care Home refused to pay for any enhanced service, although many residents had complex needs and should have been in specialist care, had any places been available.
To save money, the local authority was not providing the Care Home with several key services like district nursing, so the burden on GPs was even worse.
Some residents didn't even have a medical summary or management plan.
The whole thing was awful. The GPs were overstretched and clearly unhappy about the terrible treatment of vulnerable elderly people, as well as having to give a sub-standard service to other patients. They were more than happy to treat the residents if a proper plan and resources were put into it.
It really wasn't about GPS being unreasonable, selfish or uncaring, in our case. Quite the opposite.
I fear GPS will be made to take the flack for the fact that local authorities have cut social services to the bone and dumped people who need high levels of care in ill-equipped general care homes, whose owners won't pay for appropriate care because it eats up their profits.
Everyone in this country wants elderly people to have good care, no one wants to pay for it or even admit how much 'good care' actually costs.