Our submission this year conveys our disappointment and frustration that whilst the AFPRB invites the BMA and BDA to submit evidence, our expertise and evidence is seemingly not considered or recognised in their recommendations. These feelings have been exacerbated by the MOD’s decision not to submit evidence relating to Medical & Dental Officers (MODOs) for the 2026/27 pay round, and as a result the AFPRB has moved to bi-annual recommendations for MODOs. What is more the BMA and BDA have not been invited to present oral evidence this year.  

We have both informally and formally (via a Freedom of Information request) asked to see a copy of the MOD’s evidence to the last AFPRB pay round to analyse the MOD’s proposals and better understand the reasoning behind some of the recommendations made. Disappointingly this has not been forthcoming, and the MOD have shared no further information with us. Furthermore, whilst other pay review bodies such as the Doctors & Dentists Review Body (DDRB) share copies of evidence with all those who submit, the AFPRB is not willing to do so. We have asked going forward that the MOD evidence relating to MODOs be shared with the BMA and BDA for information sharing and transparency purposes. 

Among our greatest concerns with the last report are two recommendations that were not made. The points of concern are the pay gap for resident doctors at ten years and responsibility payments. 

We included results from our second member survey on experiences with the Unified Career Management (UCM) process and noted that whilst it is encouraging to see that there have been some improvements in the past year, it is clear from our survey results that UCM is not delivering what it was designed to. Rather than streamlining the process and creating equal opportunities between the Services, it is causing consternation and confusion. 

In last year’s submission we undertook an extensive pay comparability analysis comparing resident doctors with NHS residents, and consultants with NHS consultants. We maintain that this pay proposal is a fair and appropriate way to remunerate military secondary care doctors and repeated our call for the AFPRB to adopt our recommendations from our 2024/25 submission, updated by the 4.5% uplift recommended by the AFPRB for 2025/26.  

Our data analysis in this year's submission focused on military GPs pay. The DMS and BMA agreed in 2018 that military GPs, once qualified, should be considered the equivalent to a GP Partner (dispensing). We also shared results from the military GP responsibilities survey we conducted which showed that responsibilities, on the whole, align most closely with a NHS GP partner (dispensing). GP partners working in the NHS ordinarily have financial management responsibilities and liabilities too, however, where regular military GPs do not have such responsibilities, they make up for this gap with other responsibilities which are specific to the armed forces, such as operational and exercise planning and on call duties.  

We shared a data comparison showing the average earnings for GP partners by age bracket against the average salary for an armed forces GP. The data demonstrates that armed forces GP pay has fallen significantly behind the earnings of their NHS GP counterparts over time, and that this gap is increasing. In more recent years, this gap is particularly acute for GPs at the beginning of their careers. We maintain the position that in order to be a competitive and attractive employer, the MOD must pay above what is on offer in the NHS. 

We asked that all Consultants and GPs in the reserves who have completed the Armed Forces Consultant Appointment Board (ASCAB), equivalent qualification or a relevant GP appointment, be paid on the relevant regular pay scale, even when performing a role which is not primarily their medical role. 

We highlighted the impact of poor pension administration, especially in relation to the Scheme Pays process and the need for Government to remove the annual allowance taper and index the annual allowance limit in line with inflation so it doesn’t continue to fall in real terms.