Time for an open debate on the future of health and care

In a recent HSJ article, Sir John Oldham was reported as calling on politicians to immediately begin a public debate on the future of funding for health and care services.  To turn up the volume to very loud, there has this week been an unprecedented coming together of health leaders booming for this debate to take place now, in support of the 2015 Challenge Manifesto.

Sir John led an independent commission on whole person care for the Labour Party, which was published in February this year. One of its recommendations was the commissioning of an “independent national conversation”, backed by all political parties that would “recognise the need for a longer term agreement with the people of the country on what health and social care should be, how and where it is delivered, and how it should be paid for”.

The debate has been sparked further by Kate Barker who recently published a report as part of the King’s Fund commission on the future of health and social care, calling for a major expansion of free social care and for councils’ care budgets to be pooled with a “significant” proportion of the NHS budget.

HSJ quoted Sir John as saying: “[the debate] should start now. There’s been enough consensus [about the funding problem].

“We need to make decisions that inevitably this side of an election politicians will be reluctant to [make]. But we need to start that conversation.”

While I wholeheartedly agree with Sir John Oldham's comments, and with the whole person care commission which is informing our strategy, I wonder if he heard the echo of his words after he made his comments? 

I don't think politicians are going to start this debate, however I think the public would welcome it.  They know we have financial challenges and are intelligent and responsible enough to help political leaders make informed judgements on how to address this growing problem. 

Large scale reorganisation to create health and social care organisations would become the project for the next two to five years. The project for the next decade needs to be care outside of hospital, psychologically minded care (vastly underestimated) and promoting self-care and behaviour change in how health is provided. 

This will need driving by policies that act as incentives for care in the community and boldly state hospitals are not health, health is in the communities, some of whom on occasion need hospital care. 

The approach in Tameside is the closest I have seen that is trying to create an integrated care organisation. The initiative is very positive, bold and aims to focus on care outside of hospital and achieve an affordable, coherent health and social care offer. In reality, I still think this will be a number of partners working together under the umbrella of an Integrated Care Organisation (ICO).  

Achieving one clean organisation will be challenging and I believe will always require partners who can make a particular contribution in the mix somewhere. However, initiatives like this should be applauded for taking an open and transparent approach to tackling national issues at a local level. 

However, as I said at the beginning, this debate should be happening at a national and political level.  My concern without the national debate is that we will drift into making reorganisation the goal, and if we do that becomes the project.  

You can shuffle the deck chairs of management but you won't get real change until we steer a very different course for health and social care for the coming decade.

Improving quality in challenging times

I am often asked ‘why can’t you just use your surplus to make savings and protect services?’  which is a valid question I will try to answer.

The Trust's financial surplus in simple terms is there to both keep the Trust afloat (in the black not the red) and to pay for high cost projects to improve patient care (capital investment).  Our surplus each year is around £2 million and could never cover the level of efficiencies we have to make.  It is a one off sum of money (like money in a savings account), whereas the efficiencies are against spend each and every year (like reducing your outgoings at home). 

Rather than a technical explanation, I will give examples of how the surplus has benefitted staff and patients alike over many years:

• The excellent ward improvements in Tameside and Stockport, completed in 2013, cost around £7 million, paid for from the Trust’s surplus.
• PARIS and the roll-out of a modern information system, improving patient information and staff working practices has been funded from the Trusts surplus.
• We enjoy high levels of maintenance and in-year improvements to our environment funded from the Trust’s surplus.
• In the next few years we will refit/redesign/refurbish wards in Oldham, this will be funded from the surplus

Compared to 10 years ago, the majority of staff and patients now benefit from being in high quality environments. This couldn’t have been achieved without sound financial management, which is a reason why managing money well is an integral part of delivering excellent care.

Savings

Pennine Care isn’t the only Trust making savings, all NHS Trusts have to.  All Councils are having to make savings and very significant reductions in costs.  Commissioners (who buy our services on behalf of the public) are making difficult decisions on priorities in a climate of reducing investment and increasing demand. Everyone across health and social care is working with the challenge of reduced levels of funding and increasing demands for services.

This means commissioners are increasingly concerned with the value they get for each pound they spend, more so now than ever. Providers like Pennine Care, have to make our own efficiencies, under increasing scrutiny.  We have to ask, is the care we deliver the best possible within the most efficient cost envelope?

If commissioners can’t be convinced of the value and productivity of what we provide, there is every chance they will stop buying it, or buy it from someone else. There has never been a more important time than now to be able to demonstrate that what we provide is effective and good value. Commissioners are now guided to use competition to test for value and that’s why we have so much activity around tenders for services we already operate.

Focus on patients and quality

Whilst I didn’t welcome the financial crisis, I very much welcome the patient focused debate that has been generated as a consequence of economic upheaval. Every pound spent has to buy something effective and efficient, and we have to drive out any variation or inefficiency.

I heard a patient story recently, from a daughter about her mum. Mum had had more than one stroke and lived alone, she needed a lot of care to support her. It wasn’t great to hear that the disjointed care was in part delivered by Pennine Care. What was great was how we fixed it once they raised their concerns. Their concerns? Multiple practitioners and agencies going in to provide care to mum, with no one speaking to each other. Disjointed, unproductive and at times unhelpful care. That isn’t efficient or effective.

I use that as an example of where we need to make changes and improvement. I do know that we deliver excellent care more often than not and that staff are hard working. But, in the current climate can we always demonstrate that? Do we communicate it well where we do provide excellent care? I don’t think we do sufficiently.

And that’s where the new vision and strategy will come in, when it is launched this month. It will set out what we believe everyone wants in terms of excellent care, it will describe what we think success will look like, based on what staff and stakeholders have told us.

Whole system change

It’s not just our challenge either. Rob Webster, the new Chief Executive of the NHS Confederation has recently said NHS Chief Executives need to lead outside of their organisations and lead across systems. What he meant by that is that we all now have to look beyond Pennine Care, beyond our usual NHS borders, and form new partnerships to deliver better and more efficient care.

And Pennine Care’s collective challenge in all of this? As every pound spent has to be spent well, we all need to demonstrate that what we provide works and how we deliver it is good value. I’ll write more on that in the future, but that’s why I started blogging about money to acknowledge that the current climate can make things tough. But also to set out that the reality that we must ensure we deliver evidence-based care, consistently and at the most efficient cost possible.

I think the journey we are on is one of improvement and there is the real prospect of exciting change and redesign. It will be challenging but I truly believe care will improve as we work through each step together.

With two posts on money done, next time more on our vision and strategy.

Michael

Twitter: @MichaelMcCourt1