Sheffield CCG has been running a series of workshops in Sheffield entitled Changing the Balance - A 2020 Vision of Health and Social Care in Sheffield.
Changing the Balance - A 2020 Vision of Health and Social Care in Sheffield; (Health and Wellbeing Board) The notes of the first 2020 vision meeting in May are here. There are further similar events coming up on 12th August and in early September. See here. The introduction highlighted an expected £65m funding gap for the NHS in Sheffield by 2020 and set increasing demand caused by an ageing society, more long-term conditions and increasing expectations against supply issues: increasing costs of provision; limits to productivity gains; and reducing public expenditure. On an electronic poll most participants agreed that the NHS had to change but the changes were all discussed in terms of improving services within the current context of public provision and increased VCF participation.
This is certainly not the case in most areas outside Sheffield especially for those CCGs and parts of NHS England for whom only the private sector can deliver more cheaply and for those who continue to drive moves to an insurance based system (which the forms of Simon Stevens' Five Year Forward View' fit nicely). Sheffield may be one of the few places where there is still sufficient expertise, resource and collective commitment to make a realistic stab at delivering on its joint strategies but the history of attempts to make savings through integration, moving services into the community, increasing productivity, seven day working etc is pretty grim. See this Morning Star article by John Lister of London Health Emergency.
None of Sheffield's current rush of consultations touches the overall shape of services, decision making and accountability. The position of the biggest provider, the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals Trust, which also runs many community services, is difficult to assess and, for the first time, it expects to report a deficit this year because of the national tariff reforms. The Health and Social Care Trust is so concerned at the erosion of what others think of as its 'non-core' care services that it is considering setting up a company to bid more cheaply.
but things must shortly come to a head as the city-region faces up to George Osborne's challenges about devolution and his demand for a local decision before his autumn financial statement. Both the CCG and the Trusts are joining wider groups of similar bodies to make more regional decisions. Could 'local' (i.e. sub-regional as opposed to national) decision making (let's leave the mayor question for the moment) help Sheffield become safer in trying to pursue a continuation of publicly provided services or will the region be cast off with limited budgets, internal squabbling about financial allocations, unaccountable local processes and the final condition that the Secretary of State can prevent any action which he or she dislikes? And does devolution of NHS services itself mean the fragmentation of the NHS as a national service? The issue of localism in the NHS has tended to surface only in terms of the postcode lottery. The Medical Practitioners Union is one group arguing that moves to localism only make sense in the context of restoring the Secretary of State's duty to provide a comprehensive health service, but that won't happen for at least five years now. There is also widespread concern that this will mean local government and local politicians controlling NHS spending See John Lister again.
Locally Sheffield for Democracy has over the last year been raising significant questions about the format of the city region and its decision making, and is now taking these concerns into the devolution debate. SSONHS will also be tackling these issues in the coming weeks and raising questions for the CCG, the Council and other relevant bodies.
We are a grassroots movement comprising people from all walks of life who are, or will be affected by the government’s austerity measures and spending cuts to NHS Services across England. We also strongly oppose the creeping privatisation of the NHS by successive governments. Privatisation = Profit not Good Patient Care
Tuesday, 28 July 2015
GP funding crisis update
Update 7th October. Practices are now having their special case applications considered by the CCG. Some practices with income loss have chosen to explore other solutions like mergers. The CCG is to become a Level 3 co-commissioner of primary care with NHS England which means that once again (as in the Sheffield Primary Care Trust abolished by the Coalition) commissioning decisions for Sheffield will be taken in Sheffield - though GPs are excluded from the actual decision making.
July 2015 A packed public meeting of the CCG goverening body on 16th July heard almost an hour of representations from the public, a presentation from the CCG and statements from NHS England, the Local Medical Committee and GP representatives of the four Sheffield localities. The CCG stated that the 11 practices most at risk were from different and differing areas of the city, not just disadvantaged areas but support for Devonshire Green and Page Hall was explicit, including from other GPS who supported the general principle of equalisation. In the end Members of the Board eligible to vote agreed the original proposal but with an apparently enhanced safety net (in terms of criteria rather than money)giving more weight to health inequalities, a commitment that no practice would be left unviable and an agreement to report back in public during September.
The CCG's relief was understandable. They took the risk of holding a complicated decision making meeting in public, they gave space to the public to voice their feelings, they gained a lot of useful feedback and they got their original recommendation through. Campaigners (especially the two practices most at risk) were also successful in getting very strong shows of patient support particularly from migrant communities which are not often heard, let alone seen at public meetings.
However for the most vulnerable practices the relief must have been more double edged. They could feel both pleased and relieved at some of the assurances given, but were also alarmed that little or no additional resources were being made available and that they would have to spend a considerable amount more time and effort to make very strong cases to prevent actual cuts in practice income and therefore services. The only disadvantage weighting used for the equalisation proposal has been the inadequate modified Carr-Hill formula from 2004 which does not include ethnicity or language and the new safety net measure have to recognise that this will not do and the CCG must be pushed to recognise the particular problems of serving transient populations where the list/per capita model of financing does not reflect patient demand. Development of these arguments, particularly from Devonshire Green, has been going on for a long time; NHS England and the CCG have no excuse for not producing appropriate, effective, fair and acceptable solutions. Some services will probably have to be shared with / co-delivered by neighbouring practices and as with most NHS reconfigurations, however justified, these changes may affect jobs, earnings and livelihoods as well as services.
Overall and not surprisingly GPs were overwhelmingly in favour of the equalisation policy especially now that collaboration and integration are being given a bit more emphasis than competition. All practices feel stretched and from a business point of view equalisation now makes more sense. This probably reflects the uneven development of PMS contracts where nationally some practices working with disadvantaged populations have sought to maximise the resources they can bring to meeting their health needs, but others have involved GPs finding ways of increasing their practice income without increasing services. The historical anomalies surrounding contracts have resulted in situations where neighbouring surgeries serving similar populations (including disadvantaged ones or communities with special needs) receive considerable different incomes. Interestingly the promotion of PMS income opportunities by Labour in the 2000s could be seen as reflecting Labour's belief at that time in competition and choice: unequal resources mattered less because they promoted competition between GPs which therefore increased patient choice. This is yet another of the ways in which Blairite Labour laid the foundations for Andrew Lansley.
SSONHS has actively offered support to the surgeries under threat and has received formal thanks from them. If progress on the safety net for practices is not clearly being made by September the next Business Meeting of the CCG on September 3rd and the CCG AGM on September 10th will have to be lobbied even more strongly.
July 2015 A packed public meeting of the CCG goverening body on 16th July heard almost an hour of representations from the public, a presentation from the CCG and statements from NHS England, the Local Medical Committee and GP representatives of the four Sheffield localities. The CCG stated that the 11 practices most at risk were from different and differing areas of the city, not just disadvantaged areas but support for Devonshire Green and Page Hall was explicit, including from other GPS who supported the general principle of equalisation. In the end Members of the Board eligible to vote agreed the original proposal but with an apparently enhanced safety net (in terms of criteria rather than money)giving more weight to health inequalities, a commitment that no practice would be left unviable and an agreement to report back in public during September.
The CCG's relief was understandable. They took the risk of holding a complicated decision making meeting in public, they gave space to the public to voice their feelings, they gained a lot of useful feedback and they got their original recommendation through. Campaigners (especially the two practices most at risk) were also successful in getting very strong shows of patient support particularly from migrant communities which are not often heard, let alone seen at public meetings.
However for the most vulnerable practices the relief must have been more double edged. They could feel both pleased and relieved at some of the assurances given, but were also alarmed that little or no additional resources were being made available and that they would have to spend a considerable amount more time and effort to make very strong cases to prevent actual cuts in practice income and therefore services. The only disadvantage weighting used for the equalisation proposal has been the inadequate modified Carr-Hill formula from 2004 which does not include ethnicity or language and the new safety net measure have to recognise that this will not do and the CCG must be pushed to recognise the particular problems of serving transient populations where the list/per capita model of financing does not reflect patient demand. Development of these arguments, particularly from Devonshire Green, has been going on for a long time; NHS England and the CCG have no excuse for not producing appropriate, effective, fair and acceptable solutions. Some services will probably have to be shared with / co-delivered by neighbouring practices and as with most NHS reconfigurations, however justified, these changes may affect jobs, earnings and livelihoods as well as services.
Overall and not surprisingly GPs were overwhelmingly in favour of the equalisation policy especially now that collaboration and integration are being given a bit more emphasis than competition. All practices feel stretched and from a business point of view equalisation now makes more sense. This probably reflects the uneven development of PMS contracts where nationally some practices working with disadvantaged populations have sought to maximise the resources they can bring to meeting their health needs, but others have involved GPs finding ways of increasing their practice income without increasing services. The historical anomalies surrounding contracts have resulted in situations where neighbouring surgeries serving similar populations (including disadvantaged ones or communities with special needs) receive considerable different incomes. Interestingly the promotion of PMS income opportunities by Labour in the 2000s could be seen as reflecting Labour's belief at that time in competition and choice: unequal resources mattered less because they promoted competition between GPs which therefore increased patient choice. This is yet another of the ways in which Blairite Labour laid the foundations for Andrew Lansley.
SSONHS has actively offered support to the surgeries under threat and has received formal thanks from them. If progress on the safety net for practices is not clearly being made by September the next Business Meeting of the CCG on September 3rd and the CCG AGM on September 10th will have to be lobbied even more strongly.
Tuesday, 7 July 2015
Crisis and possibly closure for some of our best GP practices
NHS England has ordered that some of the ways in which GPs are funded has to be changed. Over the last few months we have seen practices all over the country, including Devonshire Green Surgery in Sheffield fighting the abolition of the Minimum Practice Income Guarantee. Now NHS England has ordained that another form of funding, PMS, should be phased out over a much shorter time putting 11 practices at risk in Sheffield.
Since the foundation of the NHS GPs have been independent practitioners working for the NHS on a contract basis. Following the abolition of Primary Care Trusts in 2012, contracts have been overseen by NHS England, although CCGs have recently been encouraged to get involved in co-commissioning. Traditionally these contracts have been for GPs to provide General Medical Services (GMS). The terms of the contract are set nationally and have undergone significant revisions at different times, most recently in 2004. However since about 1997 and more so since 2004 many practices have been on a more flexible contract called PMS (Personal Medical Services) which was intended to allow practices to tailor their services more specifically to local needs and priorities and which made it easier to employ salaried GPs. Also in 2004 there were changes to the basis on which GP core practice income was calculated; these were intended to make the income more sensitive to practice needs (including deprivation) but when the calculations were delivered to practices there was a huge outcry because nearly every practice would lose money and many would be made financially unviable. As a result the formula was revised during a heavy week of negotiations and an emergency correction factor was introduced, the Minimum Practice Income Guarantee (MPIG) to save practices, especially those most at risk. The NHS is full of such measures which are introduced because some other decision has had unintended consequences, which is partly why NHS funding is so complicated - and often unfair.
Over the last 10 years there have been significant changes in the expectations of and demands on General Practice, especially the services they provide within surgeries and NHS England has been looking for savings or reallocations. A study they commissioned suggested that these days there is far less practical difference between GMS and PMS surgeries and that PMS practices are actually receiving a premium (i.e. extra money which is not reflected in extra services) put nationally at £260m. Whether this is correct or not is open to argument. In addition NHS England decided that the MPIG was having less and less effect overall and that it should be phased out, although it admitted that this would seriously affect the practices which MPIG was originally introduced to help, among them Devonshire Green Surgery. MPIG is already being phased out over 7 years and this is what Devonshire Green has been protesting about. Other surgeries which have been vigorously campaigning include the Limehouse Practice in Tower Hamlets. See this facebook page
NHS England has now also instructed that the PMS system should be abolished but within a much shorter period. Local CCGs have been told to distribute the savings around local GPs in whatever they determine to be an equitable manner. A report to the CCG Governing Body meeting of 2nd July recommended that this surplus ( the estimated local premium totalling around £2.9m) should be redistributed equally around local practices, subject to certain adjustments for deprivation weighting and the possibility that practices at risk could apply to the CCG for special consideration because of the services they provide.
The report said that 62 out of the 87 practices in Sheffield would lose out, with 11 practices losing more than £20 per weighted patient – a potential loss of more than £200,000 per year. Without special help, these practices may not be able to survive so that thousands of Sheffield patients, including many from vulnerable groups, face the possible closure of their General Practice during the next 18 months. The full list has not been made public because of confidentiality issues but it includes Devonshire Green Surgery and Page Hall Medical Centre. Doctors from both these surgeries attended the successful SSONHS meeting last Thursday.
The CCG had to deal with this in an extraordinary way. GPs were excluded from the decision making (because of their financial interest) leaving the CCG inquorate, so it had been decided in advance to run a contiguous sub committee of non-executive directors, CCG officers and the co-option of regular participant observers. They were told that the decision had to be taken fairly quickly or more problems would arise.
In the public questions part of the meeting the paper had been challenged by Dr Graham Pettinger from Devonshire Green Surgery and by a representative of Sheffield Save Our NHS on the basis that it contained no Equality Impact Assessment and that the criteria for special help seemed far too rigid.
Also in the preliminary discussion Dr Mark Durling from the Local Medical Committee representing all GPs said that general practice faced a catastrophe. Demand, stress, financial pressures and bureaucracy were causing many middle aged doctors to leave. The historical system of GP funding does not work properly but the current proposals, as they stood, would severely affect practices with dedicated doctors and staff who were putting all their resources into the care of their patients. The implication of Dr Durling's remarks is that these are practices which really are using their PMS money for extra services, and now risk being put out of action because of this. The notion that these practices are receiving an undeserved premium is quite wrong.
In the formal discussion on the paper the CCG officers apologised for not including an EIA and said that some of the criteria for special help could be adjusted as could the sum set aside from CCG funds. However they said that a decision was needed urgently as further uncertainty might lead doctors in some of the non PMS practices to start withdrawing services such as phlebotomy which they are having to meet out of their own core funding and sending patients to hospital instead. Board members seemed to accept during the meeting that there was not an agreed interpretation of word 'equitable' which is required by NHS England as a criterion for this redistribution. In this case we are talking both about effects on health inequalities and equity as fairness for practices. They were also troubled by the lack of information especially the EIA and decided to defer the decision for a fortnight.
SSONHS members have been supporting Devonshire Green from the start of their campaign; we alerted practices about the impending decision; and since the meeting we have been liaising with some of the GPs from the practices at risk. We want to see doctors working together to find the best way of supporting the varied need of patients across Sheffield. We do not want to see those doctors who have made huge efforts to connect with their local communities and meet their needs being hung out to dry.
There is also a further risk to practices consisting of salaried GPs and run by the Sheffield Health and Social Care Trust. These contracts are due to expire soon meaning that the practices may be put out to competitive tender and fall under the control of private companies such as Virgin. Independent research has shown that GP services run by private companies are less effective than NHS GPs on 14 out of 17 measures.
The doctors have been discussing the best way to campaign; it's not easy because the interests, needs and finances of all the practices are different making common ground more difficult to establish in detail. What's more they are forced to compete with each other for survival - which would not be happening if the overall funding to GPs was not being reduced by the Government. It is also obvious that any practice closures or service reductions will put far more financial pressure on other parts of the system.
Devonshire Green has had its own campaigning site for some months, and this will be regularly updated. See here Other practices may set up their own Save Our Surgery campaigns but will, we hope, also link up to provide a more concerted public presence.
SSONHS supporters who are patients of the practices at risk are urged to offer direct support when they identify themselves and to support any more centralised protests - see our website for updates. Things may develop quite rapidly unless the practices receive adequate assurances from the CCG. Already in the last 6 months NHS England has been forced to abandon threats of practice closure in both Sheffield and Goldthorpe when local patients have organised to protest.
Since the foundation of the NHS GPs have been independent practitioners working for the NHS on a contract basis. Following the abolition of Primary Care Trusts in 2012, contracts have been overseen by NHS England, although CCGs have recently been encouraged to get involved in co-commissioning. Traditionally these contracts have been for GPs to provide General Medical Services (GMS). The terms of the contract are set nationally and have undergone significant revisions at different times, most recently in 2004. However since about 1997 and more so since 2004 many practices have been on a more flexible contract called PMS (Personal Medical Services) which was intended to allow practices to tailor their services more specifically to local needs and priorities and which made it easier to employ salaried GPs. Also in 2004 there were changes to the basis on which GP core practice income was calculated; these were intended to make the income more sensitive to practice needs (including deprivation) but when the calculations were delivered to practices there was a huge outcry because nearly every practice would lose money and many would be made financially unviable. As a result the formula was revised during a heavy week of negotiations and an emergency correction factor was introduced, the Minimum Practice Income Guarantee (MPIG) to save practices, especially those most at risk. The NHS is full of such measures which are introduced because some other decision has had unintended consequences, which is partly why NHS funding is so complicated - and often unfair.
Over the last 10 years there have been significant changes in the expectations of and demands on General Practice, especially the services they provide within surgeries and NHS England has been looking for savings or reallocations. A study they commissioned suggested that these days there is far less practical difference between GMS and PMS surgeries and that PMS practices are actually receiving a premium (i.e. extra money which is not reflected in extra services) put nationally at £260m. Whether this is correct or not is open to argument. In addition NHS England decided that the MPIG was having less and less effect overall and that it should be phased out, although it admitted that this would seriously affect the practices which MPIG was originally introduced to help, among them Devonshire Green Surgery. MPIG is already being phased out over 7 years and this is what Devonshire Green has been protesting about. Other surgeries which have been vigorously campaigning include the Limehouse Practice in Tower Hamlets. See this facebook page
NHS England has now also instructed that the PMS system should be abolished but within a much shorter period. Local CCGs have been told to distribute the savings around local GPs in whatever they determine to be an equitable manner. A report to the CCG Governing Body meeting of 2nd July recommended that this surplus ( the estimated local premium totalling around £2.9m) should be redistributed equally around local practices, subject to certain adjustments for deprivation weighting and the possibility that practices at risk could apply to the CCG for special consideration because of the services they provide.
The report said that 62 out of the 87 practices in Sheffield would lose out, with 11 practices losing more than £20 per weighted patient – a potential loss of more than £200,000 per year. Without special help, these practices may not be able to survive so that thousands of Sheffield patients, including many from vulnerable groups, face the possible closure of their General Practice during the next 18 months. The full list has not been made public because of confidentiality issues but it includes Devonshire Green Surgery and Page Hall Medical Centre. Doctors from both these surgeries attended the successful SSONHS meeting last Thursday.
The CCG had to deal with this in an extraordinary way. GPs were excluded from the decision making (because of their financial interest) leaving the CCG inquorate, so it had been decided in advance to run a contiguous sub committee of non-executive directors, CCG officers and the co-option of regular participant observers. They were told that the decision had to be taken fairly quickly or more problems would arise.
In the public questions part of the meeting the paper had been challenged by Dr Graham Pettinger from Devonshire Green Surgery and by a representative of Sheffield Save Our NHS on the basis that it contained no Equality Impact Assessment and that the criteria for special help seemed far too rigid.
Also in the preliminary discussion Dr Mark Durling from the Local Medical Committee representing all GPs said that general practice faced a catastrophe. Demand, stress, financial pressures and bureaucracy were causing many middle aged doctors to leave. The historical system of GP funding does not work properly but the current proposals, as they stood, would severely affect practices with dedicated doctors and staff who were putting all their resources into the care of their patients. The implication of Dr Durling's remarks is that these are practices which really are using their PMS money for extra services, and now risk being put out of action because of this. The notion that these practices are receiving an undeserved premium is quite wrong.
In the formal discussion on the paper the CCG officers apologised for not including an EIA and said that some of the criteria for special help could be adjusted as could the sum set aside from CCG funds. However they said that a decision was needed urgently as further uncertainty might lead doctors in some of the non PMS practices to start withdrawing services such as phlebotomy which they are having to meet out of their own core funding and sending patients to hospital instead. Board members seemed to accept during the meeting that there was not an agreed interpretation of word 'equitable' which is required by NHS England as a criterion for this redistribution. In this case we are talking both about effects on health inequalities and equity as fairness for practices. They were also troubled by the lack of information especially the EIA and decided to defer the decision for a fortnight.
SSONHS members have been supporting Devonshire Green from the start of their campaign; we alerted practices about the impending decision; and since the meeting we have been liaising with some of the GPs from the practices at risk. We want to see doctors working together to find the best way of supporting the varied need of patients across Sheffield. We do not want to see those doctors who have made huge efforts to connect with their local communities and meet their needs being hung out to dry.
There is also a further risk to practices consisting of salaried GPs and run by the Sheffield Health and Social Care Trust. These contracts are due to expire soon meaning that the practices may be put out to competitive tender and fall under the control of private companies such as Virgin. Independent research has shown that GP services run by private companies are less effective than NHS GPs on 14 out of 17 measures.
The doctors have been discussing the best way to campaign; it's not easy because the interests, needs and finances of all the practices are different making common ground more difficult to establish in detail. What's more they are forced to compete with each other for survival - which would not be happening if the overall funding to GPs was not being reduced by the Government. It is also obvious that any practice closures or service reductions will put far more financial pressure on other parts of the system.
Devonshire Green has had its own campaigning site for some months, and this will be regularly updated. See here Other practices may set up their own Save Our Surgery campaigns but will, we hope, also link up to provide a more concerted public presence.
SSONHS supporters who are patients of the practices at risk are urged to offer direct support when they identify themselves and to support any more centralised protests - see our website for updates. Things may develop quite rapidly unless the practices receive adequate assurances from the CCG. Already in the last 6 months NHS England has been forced to abandon threats of practice closure in both Sheffield and Goldthorpe when local patients have organised to protest.