This is just the sort of economic theory we have been looking for, because it means we could all pay a lot less tax and have much better services.
Now I know that taking money away from our doctors will improve the service they give us and I know this because the PCT's director of communications told me so himself.
Well, actually the argument runs slightly different from that, so let's be absolutely accurate.
Basically, the PCT has established through some sort of survey (unclear exactly what) that levels of satisfaction with doctors in Haverhill are rather low (strange that 10,000 of their patients signed a petition backing them recently, but there you go), and therefore the PCT needs to Do Something.
The service must be improved, we are told.
So, in an innovative bid to improve the service, the PCT decided to cut some £300,000 a year from the funding for Haverhill practices.
I was told, with absolute certainty, that nine months or a year down the line we (the patients) would notice no difference in the level of service because of this.
If that were true it would be something of an achievement in the field of cost-saving.
But remember, the object of the exercise, so the PCT claimed, was to improve service – noticing no difference at all would amount to a bit of a failure.
So it's about saving money.
No, I was told, the PCT will save no money by this process.
Instead, it appears some surgeries will gain, somewhere along the line.
By a remarkable coincidence, these happen to be surgeries in rather well-off rural areas.
I guess that's just the way the cookie crumbles, PCT-wise.
There is no doubt the PCT feels misunderstood by the public over this issue.
It feels the doctors are getting all the publicity.
Why, I was asked, would you believe your doctors rather than the PCT? This seems to me a pretty fundamental question.
The insinuation is that, if the doctors are not incompetent they must be disingenuous for a reason, presumably some sort of personal gain. Do we believe that?
Our MP has looked into the matter and backed the doctors. Is he naive or is his response, as the PCT may like to think, political?
In fact, amid all this chicanery from people we thought we could trust, it is heart-warming to discover the PCT is the only player whose motive is utterly sound – the improvement of healthcare in Haverhill.
That's all it wants and let's be thankful it has evolved a cunning plan to equal any of Baldrick's – to re-allocate money somewhere else and thereby improve our GP services.
I'm going to try this on my car. If I spend money on something else instead, it will go faster, more economically and last longer.