Neighbourhood Provider Contracts: What Opting Out Costs

By Nita Kotecha, Senior Manager, Healthcare

Under NHS England’s proposals, published on 16 July 2026 and open for consultation until 10 September, a practice that declines to opt into a single neighbourhood provider service does not stop that service happening. The multi-neighbourhood provider would be required to deliver it to that practice’s patients instead. Opting out no longer protects the core contract. It moves the work, and the patient relationship, somewhere else.

That is a change in the mechanics of general practice that has had far less attention than it deserves, largely because it arrived in a technical consultation document in the middle of July rather than in a contract letter. The proposals themselves are not settled and there will be a further consultation on firmer detail later this year. But the direction is clear enough to plan around, and the response window is now measured in weeks.

What is actually being proposed?

Two optional contracts. The multi-neighbourhood provider contract, or MNP, is aimed at a footprint of around 250,000 people or more, though no national size is being mandated. It would use the NHS Standard Contract with a new neighbourhood schedule attached. The single neighbourhood provider contract, or SNP, sits at neighbourhood level and is described as an evolution of the PCN directed enhanced service.

The GMS contract is explicitly not in scope. Core general practice continues to be commissioned as it is now, and government policy is stated as keeping and reforming the GMS contract. What is changing is the layer above it, where enhanced services, extended access, and increasingly the coordination of integrated neighbourhood teams would sit.

Where an MNP is in place, commissioners would mandate that it sub-contracts the primary medical elements to the SNPs, and would stipulate which SNPs it must contract with. Practices can join and exit SNPs at defined points. That flexibility sounds reassuring, and in one direction it is.

Why does opting out no longer mean nothing changes?

Because of the fill-in mechanism. Where practices choose not to opt into part of an SNP contract, the MNP is required to deliver those services to patients. The same applies where there is no SNP at all.

For thirty years the reliable defensive position in general practice has been to decline work that is not properly funded. It worked because there was usually no one else to do it, so declining created pressure that eventually produced funding or produced silence. Under these proposals there is someone else. If the local MNP is a community trust, an acute trust or a large provider organisation, the service gets delivered to your registered patients by that organisation, and the relationship that comes with it belongs to them.

‍

"For thirty years the reliable defensive position in general practice has been to decline work that is not properly funded. Under these proposals, there is someone else to do it."

‍

I have not yet had a conversation with a practice that has worked this through, which is understandable given the timing. But it changes the calculation on every optional service, because the question is no longer whether the work is worth doing at the price offered. It is whether it is worth someone else doing it.

Is the funding protected?

Better than the early commentary suggested, and this is worth saying clearly because there has been some unnecessary alarm.

There is no new national funding for these contracts. But NHS England has proposed a minimum funding requirement so that practices do not see a drop in funding when moving to an SNP, set at a level equivalent to the PCN DES including ARRS staff. The floor is real.

The nuance is that the floor is a floor. Everything above it would be locally determined, with commissioners free to increase the scope and value of what is commissioned through the SNP contract without national approval, including locally commissioned enhanced services and incentive funding. That is genuine local flexibility. It also means the gap between a well organised neighbourhood and a poorly organised one will be wider than anything the current national DES produces, because the national floor no longer sets the ceiling as well.

Who ends up holding the contract?

The MNP must be a legal entity. It could be a primary care organisation, a limited partnership, a community interest company or an NHS trust. It can be held by a single entity or by a lead provider on behalf of a consortium.

The SNP is more forgiving than most practices expect, and this is the detail I would want partners to know. The SNP contract holder must also be a legal entity, but it can be a lead practice acting on behalf of a consortium of practices, and the consultation states there would be no requirement for practices to form separate legal entities if they do not wish to. Nobody has to incorporate to participate.

The MNP is the one that determines who sits where. There is also a safeguard worth understanding, because it is a point of leverage that will be much harder to use later. Commissioners procuring an MNP contract are likely to require evidence of support from a minimum proportion of local practices. Practices in a neighbourhood therefore have a collective say in who holds the contract above them, but only if they are organised enough to exercise it at the point of procurement rather than afterwards.

What is genuinely better about this?

It would be lazy to present the whole thing as a threat. Several elements are improvements on what exists.

ICBs would set the length of SNP contracts, and they could run over multiple years, where the PCN DES is renegotiated annually. Anyone who has tried to plan a workforce or justify an investment against a contract that might change in March knows what multi-year certainty is worth. The consultation also acknowledges directly that GP-led organisations and federations fear the NHS Standard Contract will be too burdensome, and commits to procurement that is proportionate and does not disadvantage smaller providers. And the neighbourhood schedule is proposed to allow access to NHS pensions, which matters a great deal for anyone employing clinical staff outside a practice.

What is worth doing before 10 September?

Three things, and none of them commit the practice to anything.

• Respond to the consultation. It is the cheapest influence available and the one most practices will skip.
• Ask the ICB which of the three commissioning options it is minded to take. They cannot run in parallel, and the PCN DES and an SNP cannot co-exist in the same geography, so this is a choice being made rather than a drift.
• Work out within the PCN whether there is an at-scale vehicle locally that could credibly hold an MNP contract. If the answer is no, the answer will be a trust.

None of this requires a decision this month. It does require knowing what is being decided, which is more than most practices currently do.

‍

If it would help to think through what these proposals mean for your practice or your federation, I am always happy to work through it with the healthcare team.

This article has been prepared for information purposes only. Formal professional advice is strongly recommended before making decisions on the topics discussed in this release. No responsibility for any loss to any person acting, or not acting, as a result of this release can be accepted by us, or any person affiliated with us.

‍