Some NHS announcements are well documented—but others seem to slip quietly under the radar. And when they do surface, it’s often too late for any meaningful discussion. 

COVID Vaccinations 2025: A Risky Retreat

One such under-reported decision is the announcement that this winter’s COVID vaccinations will be restricted to those over 75 and the immunosuppressed. That’s over six million patients excluded—including NHS staff and frontline care home workers.

Dr Leyla Hannbeck, Chief Executive of the Independent Pharmacies Association, called it “hugely concerning” and “madness,” especially when countries like Germany and the United States continue to recommend the vaccine for all pensioners. She warns:

“To deny millions of seniors their Covid jab this year is to take an unacceptable risk with patient health and risks producing a winter crisis the NHS simply won’t be able to cope with.”

What’s particularly interesting is the language used in the announcement—it refers to the withdrawal of free vaccinations. Are we to assume that paid options will be introduced? I’ve looked into private provision, and at around £60 to £90 per jab, it’s hardly accessible. If affordability becomes the barrier, we risk turning public health into a postcode lottery.

Other countries are continuing their vaccination programmes. I can’t help but wonder whether our NHS may now more concerned with cost-saving than safeguarding lives. If this decision received wider publicity, it might just force another U-turn.

Regulating Practice Managers: A Solution in Search of a Problem?

Another issue quietly gathering momentum is the proposed regulation of NHS managers—expected next year. The government has decided to regulate NHS Managers, and there will be a formal consultation on the method of regulation, which is likely to happen in late 2026. But for now, GP Practice Managers won't be included, at least in the first wave of regulation.

It’s the potential regulation of Practice Managers that concerns me most. Let’s be honest: we’re not NHS employees. We work within partnerships that operate as independent businesses.

In many ways, we’re already highly regulated—answerable to our partners and navigating a complex landscape that includes QOF, CQRS, Health and Safety, and of course, the CQC.

So what exactly is the government planning? Do they truly understand that every practice operates differently—shaped by its size, location, and patient demographics?

We’re already held financially accountable at annual audit and accounts meetings. Our partners know the calibre of their managers. If someone isn’t up to the job, it’s usually dealt with swiftly and locally.

I’m trying to understand what form of regulation could be introduced that isn’t already in place—and more importantly, what benefit it would bring to patients or managers. There’s talk of a yearly subscription, annual revalidation, mandatory training, and even a formal qualification. But when are managers expected to find the time for all this? And who’s footing the bill?

This is already a high-pressure role, requiring constant juggling of responsibilities. For those who’ve been in post for many years, the idea of being revalidated as “fit for the role” may feel like an unnecessary hurdle. And for those nearing retirement, it could be the final straw—prompting a wave of departures at a time when experienced managers are already in short supply.

Yes, there may be a handful of managers who aren’t suited to the role. But their employers are best placed to identify and address that—not a blanket regulatory system.

As a retired manager myself, I struggle to see how a formal qualification would have made me more effective. Many of us came from other sectors, bringing with us years of business and financial experience—skills that proved invaluable in practice management.

My concern is that any new regulation will be layered on top of existing requirements, based on a “one-size-fits-all” approach that ignores the diversity and complexity of general practice.

These concerns need to be raised now—with the LMC and other representative bodies—before decisions are made and imposed. We need a voice in this conversation, not a retrospective reaction.