- Book your PQ and IPFM exam(s)
- Book your CETC course(s)
By Phil Harding, Network Advisor for Health and Social Care
The 2013 Spending Round (SR) contained significant news on funding for Health and Social Care. Much of what was announced reflected the recent growing focus within Government and the health care profession upon greater integration of health care provision.
The main emphasis was the increase in funding for a single pooled budget for health and social care. This budget aims to see joined up health care provision working alongside an emphasis on prevention, managed at a local level, with the hope that this will see an increase in the impact and benefit of the money spent.
However within the context of this focus it is important that we learn from the lessons from some of the successful partnerships that already exist.
The Spending Round made a number of significant funding announcements for Health and Social Care. These included:
Although the details of the shared pool are yet to be fully mapped out by the Government its intentions seem clear. By moving money from the central NHS budget to social care and prevention the Government is looking to ensure that care is driven more locally and that responsibility for more spending decisions also rest with local bodies. It also hopes that by investing in prevention and relieving pressure from traditional front line responders that it may be able to make significant efficiency savings.
There are clear hints that the government is hoping that integrated working will lead to savings. At the SR it said these moves would “following the example of the Whole Place Community Budget pilots.”
It also included reference to the Troubled Families Programme, stating that the programme is:
“giving the children in these families a better life and reducing the high costs to the public sector that result from anti-social behaviour, worklessness, A&E visits, police call outs and truancy…
“Following the success of the programme, the Government will provide a further £200 million in 2015-16 to expand this work to 400,000 families that may require assistance with multiple problems.”
“The aim of the extended programme will be to reduce this reactive cost to the public purse and add momentum to the reform of uncoordinated services for families. The Government will pay local areas by results for real improvements to families’ lives and for demonstrable savings to the public purse.”
While this move is welcome if it does increase the success of prevention, it is important to note that at present an estimated 84 per cent of public spending on “troubled families” is reactive, with only 16 per cent invested to try to improve their lives and therefore reduce costs for the state. Further evaluation will be needed of the impact of this new funding structure before we will be able to assess whether the Government has achieved its aims and tackled some of the problems associated with troubled families and therefore reduced spending through prevention.
Another important factor in determining that success will be the split of spending in Health and Social Care, again between reactive and preventative funding. Currently Public Health spending is less than 4% of the Health and Social Care budget. Direct Health and Social Care prevention spending is less than this. This means that well over 90% of Health and Social Care spending is reactive and unaffordable in the long term unless we invest more in prevention.
The spending Round provides an opportunity to see a shift in investment for more money to be invested in prevention with additional funding:
The scope for increased investment in prevention will be explored in the next Health and Social Care Network series looking at New Opportunities for Savings - with two events one in London on the 17 July and the other in Manchester on the 18 July.