Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

One budget, one care should the uk adopt a single health and care system

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Upcoming SlideShare
Social care in the UK
Social care in the UK
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 65 Ad
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Similar to One budget, one care should the uk adopt a single health and care system (20)

Advertisement
Advertisement

One budget, one care should the uk adopt a single health and care system

  1. 1. One Budget, One Care: Should the UK adopt a single health and care system? Twitter: #onebudget! June 25th 2013!
  2. 2.   Chair: Andrea Sutcliffe, Chief Executive, Social Care Institute for Excellence!   Rt. Hon Stephen Dorrell MP, Chair, Health Select Committee!   James Lloyd, Director, Strategic Society Centre!   Dan Gascoyne, Assistant Director for Corporate Policy, Strategy and Partnerships, Essex County Council!   Matthew Flinton, Director of Legal and General Counsel, Bupa UK!
  3. 3. Rt. Hon Stephen Dorrell MP
  4. 4. James Lloyd Director Strategic Society Centre
  5. 5. …Who’s talking about integrated care?
  6. 6. Everyone…   Health Committee: Report on Social Care (2012)!   Department of Health!   Labour Party – Independent Commission on Whole-Person Care, under Sir John Oldham!
  7. 7. …What does integrated care mean?
  8. 8. Everything…   Multiple meanings have created confusion, but…!   Single assessment processes!   Integrated care pathways!   Joined up working among providers!   DH plan for ‘joined up’ care by 2018!   Joint commissioning of health and care services!   Single providers of health and social care!
  9. 9. All these models lie in different parts of the ‘integrated care matrix’…   Source: Lloyd J and Wait S (2006) Integrated Care: A guide for policymakers Provider( integra-on( User( integra-on( High% High% Low% Low% Models of integrated care can be located in different parts of this matrix
  10. 10. …What is the most radical vision of integrated care?
  11. 11. The ‘one budget’ approach…   The full merging of ‘health’ and ‘social care’ budgets;!   + Housing!   + Mental health!   One integrated budget for achieving an integrated outcomes framework, enabling the commissioning of integrated services.!
  12. 12. …Why have this conversation now? A simplified view of the health and care system in England: ‘before and after’
  13. 13. N! H! S! LA Care Budget! Commissioner ! Services! Outcomes! Outcomes!
  14. 14. Health Budget! LA Care Budget! Commissioner ! Commissioner ! Services! Services! Outcomes! Outcomes!
  15. 15. Health Budget! LA Care Budget! Commissioner ! Commissioner ! Services! Services! Outcomes! Outcomes! Health & Wellbeing Board!
  16. 16. …Why take a ‘one budget’ approach?
  17. 17. Various potential benefits…   End to cost-shifting between health vs. care budgets!   End to arguments over defining types of need!   Enable development of integrated, holistic services!   End to cost-shifting between service providers!   Enable fewer assessments, Less administration!   Better user experience!
  18. 18. Various potential benefits…   Incentives to invest in cost-effective social care services!   Shift resources from ‘health’ to ‘social care’!   “Handrails, not falls treatment”!   More space for innovation in practice and delivery !   E.g. development of new professional roles, such as ‘Local Area Coordinators’!
  19. 19. But also some risks…   Resources may be pulled up to acute care!   Hospitals important to politicians, so will still be a priority!   Complexity, transition risks, etc.!   Others?!
  20. 20. ...Why is there such interest in a ‘one budget’ approach now?
  21. 21. Two factors are changing the agenda…   Health and Wellbeing Boards present an opportunity!   Potential ‘structure’ for full single, sovereign, integrated health and care budgets; !   Emergence of a ‘burning platform for change’: the crisis in A&E/NHS pressures!   Blamed on division between health and care system!   Also blamed on social care budget shortfalls, which could be met from NHS resources!
  22. 22. …So, do Health and Wellbeing Boards really provide the big opportunity for one, integrated budget?
  23. 23. Yes…   Does not require complete reorganisation of local government financing;!   Local authorities can ‘devolve’ practical responsibility for meeting their duties!   Shift lots of CCG and Local Authority social care staff to enlarged ‘Health and Wellbeing Commissioning Boards’!   Each local HWCB can proceed at own pace!   No top-down change forced through !   In line with development of integrated services by providers!
  24. 24. But…   Still lots of questions/issues to address!   HWCB legal structure likely requires enhancement through primary legislation at Westminster!   HWB experience so far is mixed!   Resistance to giving up sovereignty and money!   So, ‘one budget’ approach would still need a push from Westminster?!
  25. 25. What could “Health and Wellbeing Commissioning Boards” do?...
  26. 26. Health Budget! LA Care Budget! Commissioner ! Commissioner ! Services! Services! Outcomes! Outcomes! Health & Wellbeing Board!
  27. 27. HWCB! One Budget! Services! Outcomes!
  28. 28. So what are the issues we need to be thinking about?...
  29. 29. Many, but three I want to flag…   Integrated service providers!   Personal Budgets!   Partnership between individual and state in paying for “social care”!
  30. 30. Integrated service providers…   To be truly worthwhile, ‘one budget’ approach needs integrated providers!   Providers able to take a holistic ‘whole person’ view of person and needs!   But this is a major challenge to providers:!   How quickly can providers respond?!   On what basis will they be happy to be commissioned?!   Is the regulatory framework ready?!
  31. 31. What is the Personal Budgets issue for the ‘one budget’ approach?...
  32. 32. Health Budget! LA Care Budget! Commissioner ! Commissioner ! Services! Services! Outcomes! Outcomes!
  33. 33. Health Budget! Personal Budget! LA Care Budget! Commissioner ! User commissioner ! Commissioner ! Services! Services!Services! Outcomes! Outcomes! Outcomes!
  34. 34. Personal Budget! User commissioner ! HWCB Commissioner ! One Budget! Services!Services! Outcomes! Outcomes!
  35. 35. Questions for Personal Budgets and ‘one budget’ approach…   How would Personal Budgets be determined under a ‘one budget’ approach? And ‘choice and control’ preserved?!   Local authority Resource Allocation Systems (RAS) for social care already a contested area!   Unclear how RAS could be used to determine Personal Budget when HWCB is commissioning for single integrated outcomes framework from a single budget!   More difficult to determine £RAS on basis of services available in different market?!
  36. 36. And so… what about long-term care funding?
  37. 37. Health Budget! LA Care Budget! Commissioner ! Commissioner ! Services! Services! Outcomes! Outcomes!
  38. 38. Health Budget! LA Care Budget! Commissioner ! Commissioner ! Free services! Means tested services! Outcomes! Outcomes!
  39. 39. Option 1: Scrap all means testing…   Very expensive, despite emerging efficiency savings from ‘one budget’ approach;!   Social care will never be ‘free at the point of use’ like NHS;!   Why? If everyone in residential care receives the LA ‘usual cost’ rate as cash-based Personal Budget, untenable to prevent private ‘top-ups’!   Current ‘self-funders’ would use additional LA money to pay more and get more!   Implications for care market, prices and inflation!
  40. 40. Option 2: Retain means testing and charging framework, but adapt it…   Individuals charged for services proportional to means!   But which services? !   ‘One budget’ approach seeks to blur boundaries between health vs. care needs, services and costs!   Plus, in context of ‘one budget’, most cost-effective way to distribute resources may not be to retain care eligibility thresholds and means tests for what was once known as ‘social care’;!   Why? May be cheaper to provide free ‘care’ services to “rich” people if it keeps them out of hospital.!
  41. 41. …And what about how state and individuals pay for care?
  42. 42. ‘Capped cost’ reforms…   Dilnot Commission published recommendations in July 2011!   Proposed significant changes to current means tested system in England!   Core principle: only the state can protect individuals from ‘catastrophic’ care costs!   Government has committed to implement ‘capped cost’ reforms from April 2016!   ‘Cap’ on notional accumulated ‘Personal Budgets’ that wealthy individuals are excluded from by LA means test!
  43. 43. ‘One budget’ and the ‘capped cost’ reforms’…   ‘One budget’ approach seeks to breakdown distinction of health vs. care needs, costs and services!   So, current local authority FACS (Fair Access to Care Services) eligibility framework and RAS systems will need to be completely reworked to enable ‘one budget’ approach. !   However, these frameworks/systems are building blocks of ‘capped cost’ reforms for metering costs of care in the community;!   So, the ‘capped cost’ reforms cannot be implemented in current form under ‘one budget’ model. !   Need to rethink how to apply the ‘capped cost principle’ in context of one budget approach?!
  44. 44. Conclusions…
  45. 45. Conclusions…   A&E crisis + HWB framework + political consensus may be tipping point for radical integration of health and social care spending!   But huge questions for Personal Budgets, integrated providers, definitions of need, and potential for unintended consequences!   Opens up again question of ‘partnership’ between individual and state in paying for what was previously known as ‘care and support’.!
  46. 46. Dan Gascoyne Assistant Director for Corporate Policy, Strategy and Partnerships Essex County Council!
  47. 47. Strategic Society Centre Debate 25th June 2013 Dan Gascoyne Assistant Director for Corporate Policy, Strategy and Partnerships, Essex County Council
  48. 48. •  Partners across Essex, Southend and Thurrock have long supported the development of Community Budgets as a means of improving local outcomes and have worked to shape the concept since its inception. •  In December 2011 partners submitted a successful expression of interest to become one of four Whole Place Community Budget pilots. •  Following selection we’ve worked with secondees from central government to co-design proposals for sustained system-change in local public services through our Whole Essex Community Budget (WECB) programme. •  Operational Plan submitted 31st October 2012 •  Proposals developed during the pilot phase will deliver total cumulative net benefits worth £388m to 2019-20 of which £118m will be direct cashable savings. •  In March 2013 resources were committed to detailed implementation plans and governance to deliver these proposals and develop further opportunities. 2 Whole Essex Community Budget: background
  49. 49. Overview of public sector spending Essex
  50. 50. Moving from business cases to phased implementation 4 WECB Programme Overview Health and Wellbeing Integrated Commissioning Economic Opportunity Skills for Growth Community Safety Reducing Reoffending Reducing Domestic Abuse Family Solutions (FCN) Strengthening Communities Essex Deal For Growth Social Investment Housing – new project
  51. 51. 5 Integrated commissioning differs from existing joint commissioning arrangements as follows: Stakeholders" Ambi8on" Governance" Scale"Margins( Mainstream( Single(Service( Mul1(Service(and(( Systemic(Change( individual(( “charisma1c‟( lead( system8wide,(( transparent( governance(( and(accountability(( Few( Many( Joint"Commissioning" Integrated"Commissioning"
  52. 52. 6
  53. 53. Summer 2012 - OBC 7
  54. 54. Where are we now? 8 •  Domestic Abuse – Alan Ray •  Strengthening Communities – Jasmine Frost •  Housing - Project Project overview Update Integrated Commissioning Driving forward strategic integration across the Health and Social Care system in Essex. Led by the Essex Health and Wellbeing Board. •  All 5 Essex CCGs have produced Integrated Plans which set out how they will deliver QIPP (Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention) and how they will work with ECC on integrated commissioning this year and in the future. •  As part of ECC transformation 5 joint posts are being recruited to, covering each of the five Essex CCG areas •  Partners working to define the ‘end state’ and how we will get there and commit the capacity to progress the work programme at pace, agreed programme management approach. •  Integrated Care Pioneer proposals being developed to support direction of travel
  55. 55. Outline framework to progress integrated commissioning has been agreed by partners across Health and Social Care. Shaped through five key service areas: •  Older People •  Mental Health •  Learning Disabilities •  Children’s Services •  Public Health 9 2013/14 Commissioning Framework
  56. 56. 10 Indicative Commissioning levels & leads (tbc)
  57. 57. 11 Principles* Our work on integrated commissioning is guided by the principles that: •  services are commissioned based upon customer needs •  where possible, they should be local and easily accessible •  addressing the needs of whole communities •  with an emphasis on prevention and early intervention •  organisations will share resources to maximise value for money •  sharing equally the responsibility for risk •  ensure service quality underpins decisions to allocate resources
  58. 58. Benefits We expect our approach to deliver the following benefits: •  Realising economies of scale and providing services at lower cost •  Improving outcomes by tackling entrenched problems •  Greater focus through prioritisation •  A more stable planning cycle •  Less complexity through clearer governance and accountability •  Streamlined pathways with reduced duplication •  A shared language and common understanding of purpose •  Greater responsiveness to community and individual needs •  Increased service provision in preferred settings e.g. community •  Ability to focus on preventative approaches to service delivery •  Innovation through working across agency and professional silos. " 12
  59. 59. Programme Cost / Benefit - summary New Investment Costs Cumulative Benefits to 2019/20 2013/14 Further Implementation (to 2019/20) Net Cashable Non- Cashable Total benefits Project £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 HWB - Integrated Commissioning 359 tbc -91,971 0 -91,971 * exemplar only Family Solutions 1,583 10,258 -29,112 0 -29,112 Domestic Abuse 370 1,800 49 -4,059 -4,010 Reducing Reoffending 178 1,008 1,186 -113,615 -112,429 Skills 47 90 137 -151,588 -151,451 Strengthening Communities 650 tbc 650 tbc 650 Social Investment 450 tbc 450 tbc 450 3,637 13,156 -118,611 -269,262 -387,873 Opportunity Costs 3,835 14,199 Total 7,472 27,355
  60. 60. Some key messages 1.  Community budgets should be focused on sustainable system-change: they have the potential to bring about wholesale system-change in public services: joining-up and co-ordinating services, streamlining processes and improving citizens’ experiences. 2.  Community budgets should focus on shared outcomes rather than pooled budgets: there are risks associated with the creation of a single funding pot. A focus on shared outcomes and integrated commissioning, rather than on the mechanics of pooled budgets, is what’s needed. 3.  Community budgets are a tool to change culture: This offers great value and requires local innovation and greater flexibility within Whitehall and local partners. Policy frameworks established by central government departments must be flexible if they are to support, rather than limit local system-change 4.  Government should not seek to artificially limit the scope of community budget activity: focusing proposals on social outcomes is not enough – economic outcomes are equally important and complementary to prevention. 14
  61. 61. •  Dedicated resources, robust programme management & governance – invest to save, for the long run •  Clear understanding of place: priorities, leadership, behaviours •  Importance of focus •  Genuine co-design – locally and nationally •  Understanding sovereignty •  Deep, lasting engagement and ownership from key stakeholders •  Willingness to flex, adapt and connect with a dynamic system e.g. 12/13 - NHS reforms; PCC; Heseltine; Transforming Rehabilitation; ECC TMII; Integrated Care; etc 15 Making a community budget successful
  62. 62. 16 ! “The only way the world is going to address social problems is by enlisting the very people who are classified as ‘clients’ and ‘consumers’ and converting them into co-workers, partners and rebuilders of the core economy.” Professor Edgar Cahn, US civil rights lawyer and inventor of time banks."" www.wecb.org.uk www.communitybudgets.org.uk
  63. 63. Matthew Flinton, Director of Legal and General Counsel, Bupa UK
  64. 64. Questions for discussion…   Integration choices – can real efficiency savings be achieved from joint commissioning, or will they only really be possible from full merging of health and care budgets to enable a single budget with a single commissioner?!   Budget pressures – is integration of health and care budgets made easier, harder or inevitable by the unprecedented budget pressures confronting the health and social care systems over the next decade? !   Implementation – how would a single health and care budget be created from the new structures in the NHS and local government? Do Health and Wellbeing Boards provide the key?!   Defining need – would a single budget for health and care retain distinctions between health and care needs, or just focus on commissioning services for outcomes?!   Paying for care – what, if any, services would individuals be charged for under a single health and care budget? Would social care still be means tested?!   Capped costs – what do radical models of integrated commissioning and funding mean for the government’s plans to cap people’s care costs?!
  65. 65. ! ! ! ! ! ! 
 Strategic Society Centre
 32-36 Loman Street
 London
 SE1 0EH
 Tel. 020 7922 7732
 info@strategicsociety.org.uk! www.strategicsociety.org.uk
 Twitter: @sscthinktank ! 
 The Strategic Society Centre is a registered charity (No. 1144565) incorporated with limited liability in England and Wales (Company No. 7273418).!

×