71 less points to achieve for QOF this year -
Does that make life easier in that this could mean less work?
How much income is that for your practice?
For the average practice, based on the non-weighted point value for 2025/26, this is just over £16,000. However, the increase in the global sum will more than cover this - an additional £9.29 per patient, 1800 patients will cover this shortfall.
I appreciate this is a very crude calculation as the global sum increase covers much more than your QOF shortfall. However, in terms of maintaining cash flow and income, and on the basis it can be so difficult to calculate income in Primary Care, sometimes crude calculations are better than nothing!
However, prevalence and burying our heads in the sand when it comes to prevalence and the accuracy of QOF registers, still baffles us.
- Is validating registers interesting?
- Probably not (although we do find it interesting, please don’t judge!)
- Do we all believe our registers/databases are accurate?
- Of course we do, but unless we work on them constantly, they never will be
- In terms of QOF, do you know how much money you could be losing by not validating them?
- Thousands of £’s, every year
- How much extra work is this for us, is it worth it?
- If you a practice losing thousands of £’s but doing the work, yes, it absolutely is worth it - also it is essential for patient care their record is accurate
Out of the total 564 points for QOF this year, 462 are prevalence weighted - 82% of points this year will be adjusted based on the size of your register compared to the national average. This means only 18% of points are based on your non-prevalence weighted point value (list size). Last year, 70% were prevalence weighted and 30% was based on your list size. This year, you just can’t afford your registers to drop under the average prevalence rate, if it does you will see a drop in QOF income.
Having said that, we just want to point out high or low prevalence is not wrong - it just needs to be accurate in order for you to be paid accurately. If you have a particularly young population, it is likely you will have low prevalence as many of the disease areas affect a more elderly population. However, that’s not new for you, it will have always been low - but maybe still worth checking? Again, if you have high prevalence already because you have a more elderly population, don’t just assume it is correct, it may be it should be higher.
If you are really unsure what this looks like for your practice, arrange a 10-minute Teams catch up with us to talk you through your current prevalence.