COMMISSIONING
NHS commissioning: a better way forward
The NHS White Paper has garnered no end of controversy, not least its plans to transfer responsibility for commissioning health care from primary care trusts to consortia of GPs by 2013. The aims are laudable but there are valid reasons to question whether the restructuring is really a good idea, says James Gubb
James Gubb
must be part of a consortium and hold budgets, and the risk, for the vast majority of health care.
In the United States, where the latter has been tried, only one in 10 associations succeeded both financially and in terms of improving patient care, according to the Nuffield Trust.
F
irst, while the evidence that exists on GP-led commissioning in the NHS shows there may well be some benefits – GP fundholding in the 1990s delivered improvements in speed, access and responsiveness of secondary care; reductions in waiting times; slight reductions in referral rates and costs; and widening the range of available services – it is by no means a certainty that these will be greater than what could have been delivered by PCTs. Importantly for the current financial climate, GP fundholders, for example, failed to reduce costs as much as expected or improve patient experience.
The evidence that exists on GP- led commissioning also comes from a different context to that proposed - one where GPs could volunteer to take on hard commissioning budgets for a sub-set of care (GP fundholding and total purchasing pilots in the 1990s), very different to now where every general practice
24 nhe
Second, while the White Paper rightly places a keen emphasis on increasing choice for patients and stimulating competition between providers to drive standards, it is unclear that GPs will have the clout or skills to deliver this through effective commissioning.
As yet, the coalition government has not enunciated its vision for commissioning clearly enough.
The term still means different things to different people: 1) the management of existing contracts through defining cost and volume, 2) buying the services that will provide the best value (in terms of quality and cost) for the patient, 3) the management of clinical decision- making and how this commits resources.
GP consortia will be well-placed, and probably better placed than PCTs, to do the latter. However, whether or not consortia can do the more fundamental second effectively is an open question.
This requires bringing in alternative providers as a competitive challenge to acute
trusts to up their game, breaking up secondary care monopolies and shifting patterns of care. With modest commissioning skills and (probably) smaller size in terms of population capture than existing PCTs, this may be beyond the majority.
Third, one cannot and should not ignore the possible impact of such fundamental restructuring of commissioning at a time when the NHS faces its greatest ever productivity challenge: around 4-5% per annum over this parliament according to the King’s Fund/Institute for Fiscal Studies. Ironing out inefficiencies within organisations may well achieve this in the first one or two years, but, moving on from that, radically new models of care will be needed across the board – not least those that transverse the primary/secondary care ‘divide’.
This will require strong commissioning. Yet it is highly questionable whether this can be achieved in an organisation naturally inclined towards the status quo while attention is diverted to creating new structures and dismantling old ones. It is certainly beyond what the NHS (-0.4% average productivity), and much of the private sector (+2.3%), has achieved in recent times.
In 2006, when 203 PCTs were merged, performance on finance and quality of care dropped the following year; it took on average three years for their performance
to catch up with the relative performance of those that weren’t merged.
Fourth, the underlying assumption of the White Paper reforms is that, in acting as commissioners, the interests of GPs will necessarily align with the interests of patients.
This may or may not be the case. Acting in the true spirit of the professional, they may well do, but it is easy to imagine a situation where GPs may be captured (consciously or unconsciously) by self- or provider-interest – as happened in PCTs with provider arms.
Why, for example, do GPs over- populate more affluent areas and under-populate poorer ones? Why are there still such significant variations in clinical practice?
Related uncertainties include the following: what system of risk/reward will be implemented for GP consortia to 1) motivate involvement and 2) provide proper incentives for them to stay within budget and focus on improving outcomes for
Nov/Dec 10
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100