It’s the time of year when the optometric sector gets its annual dose of ‘what the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) and NHS England really think of us’ news through the medium of the Optometric Fees Negotiating Committee (OFNC). Some refer to it as a ‘reality check’; while others, and I prefer this one, call it ‘a slap in the face’.
If you’re thinking ‘that slap in the face has come a little later this year’, then you’re right, but it’s sadly not a case of ‘no news is good news’. In its recent update explaining there was no update on GOS fees and grants for 2024/25, the OFNC says the delay was because it had been unable to accept the ‘very low’ offer from DHSC and NHS England, which represented ‘another real-terms cut and is lower than that for the NHS as a whole.’
This isn’t the first time the OFNC has elected not to accept an offer on the table, only for the new, lower fees to be implemented anyway. It leaves me, and probably many others in the sector, wondering whether the negotiating element of OFNC is justified. A more accurate description might be Optometric Fees Proposal Committee.
The latest lowball offer might not have stung so much had optical associations not made so much headway lobbying government on the potential expanded role primary eye care could play in supporting GPs and hospitals. Ministers and shadow ministers have extolled the virtues of high street optometry and the role it can play. Labour even wants to ‘put the sector to work’ if it wins the general election.
The acid test of this enhanced role for optometry was always going to be how the services provided in high street practices would be remunerated. If anyone out there is optimistic about these theoretical fees being reasonable, I would love to hear their rationale. I’d also like to hear from anyone who still thinks the OFNC is the best the sector can muster to go into bat for optometry.