There is a premium placed on activity. So much so that recent advice filtering down to primary care networks (PCNs) is that those which lag behind in taking on new personnel and claiming the associated reimbursements will find that the more vigorous networks will be given opportunities to claim the laggards’ unused resources.
This idea has merit: the wish to reward active networks and avoid resources going unspent. Should we applaud? Surely the idea of better resourcing the proven performers makes good sense?
The predisposition towards favouring the active is there in our language: dynamic go-getters contrast favourably against indolent couch potatoes. For an individual …