The Crowdjustice judicial review of Accountable Care Organisations – update

“Update on OUR NHS – Comprehensive Healthcare for All – STAGE 3

Hello Friends

As a backer you know our Judicial Review, challenging NHS England’s contentious Accountable Care Organisation contract, will be heard on Tuesday 24th April at Leeds High Court, 1 Oxford Row Leeds LS1 3BG

We’d like to invite supporters and fellow campaigners to a rally outside the courts from 9. 30am, to support the vital NHS principles our Judicial Review aims to defend. We will be inviting Press & Media.

This week we had a really good meeting with our legal team from public law firm Leigh Day and Landmark Chambers, to discuss the ‘skeleton case’ – a summary outline – which is due to be sent to the court in the next few days.

The skeleton case is based on our deep concern that the payment mechanism proposed for the Accountable Care Organisation contract is not only unlawful under current NHS legislation – but will lead to restrictions and denial of NHS care, and the abandonment of the core NHS principle of providing comprehensive care to all who have a clinical need for it, free at the point of use.

This would mean replacing treatment based on patients’ clinical need with treatment based on assessments of financial risk and returns – a total departure from core NHS principles, replacing them with health insurance company principles.

This is because the Accountable Care Organisation contract requires NHS commissioners to pay a fixed lump sum to cover the whole range of services for the population in a given area – rather than the present system which pays NHS providers an agreed price for the treatments they have actually delivered to patients.

Without reference to the number and complexity of treatments delivered to patients, the ACO contract’s proposed fixed population payment would pass financial risk to the providers – and from providers to us the patients.

Why? Because if providers were to get more patients needing more complex treatments costing more than the fixed lump sum they receive, they would face spending money they don’t have. They’re not likely to want to do that. The only way to avoid that would be to restrict or deny patients’ access to treatments. Particularly patients whose treatments are more costly and whose prognosis means their treatment is not such good value for money.

In our view, NHS England is playing fast and loose with existing NHS law about how prices are set and payments are made for health care provided to NHS patients.

Although we don’t in any way support the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, which increased private companies’ access to NHS contracts, fragmented the NHS and removed the Secretary of State’s duty to provide a universal, comprehensive health service in England, it is the law.

If NHS England wants to change price setting and payment methods for the provision of NHS services, it should do it in accordance with the law. If changing payment mechanisms means changing the law, that is something for Parliament – and the public that puts MPs there – to decide.

Ask yourself… “what happens when government and its quangos decide they are above the law?” It doesn’t bear thinking about.

As well as being undemocratic, NHS England’s proposed changes to how NHS services are priced and paid for would undermine the NHS as a comprehensive health service for all who have a clinical need for it.

They are about enabling moves to a cut price, bargain basement NHS that uses the same business model as the USA’s limited state-funded health insurance system that provides a restricted range of health care for people who are too poor or old to pay for private health insurance.

Thanks for your support so far.

Please share this with friends and campaigners.

We will fight this all the way.”

“There’s enough tax money to feed hungry children – it’s just in the wrong pockets”

” … Over the past two years, health bosses have charged £5.8m on taxpayer-funded credit cards to finance their lavish lifestyles.

Purchases included helicopter lessons, go-karting outings, bookings at five-star hotels, trips to cocktails bars, and stops at fast-food joints.

This behaviour shines light on a deep hypocrisy from health bosses, who on the one hand work to implement a sugar tax – effective today – to discourage taxpayers from consuming sugary drinks, and on the other hand use the same taxpayers’ money to fund their own trips to McDonalds.

Putting the hypocrisy aside, there is a wider issue here, of how taxpayer money is spent once it’s in the hands of the state.

We are always told that the solution to any given problem is more spending, and consequently calls to ramp up taxes naturally follow. But that argument fails down flat when nearly £6m that could have been used to top up a low-income parent of three, or go towards a health service we are perpetually told is “in crisis”, has been spent on public officials to live their weekends like rock stars.

The UK government is already spending around 40 per cent of GDP – the majority of that is from tax intake, but tens of billions are still borrowed from future generations.

There is no justification for increasing the burden on taxpayers by a penny more. There are already funds in the system that could help the most needy. They are just sitting in the wrong pockets. …”

http://www.cityam.com/283465/theres-enough-tax-money-feed-hungry-children-its-just-wrong

“Social” “Care”

Just watch this – being seen at an Age UK reception for MPs tonight and see just why our independent councillors are so important to us – all that stands between us and EDDC and DCC Tory councillors who deliberately bury their heads in the sand:

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/our-impact/campaigning/care-in-crisis/

“I don’t believe it!” – NHS Providers say we are short of at least 10,000 hospital beds and are treating our elderly shamefully!

“The NHS is more than 10,000 beds short of what it needs to look after older people properly, hospital leaders have said.

NHS Providers, which represents hospitals, said that it was impossible for waiting time targets to be met this year and warned that the government’s pretence that they would be met created a “toxic culture” similar to that which led to the Mid Staffordshire scandal.

This week Theresa May promised that a long-term plan for NHS budget rises would be agreed within months, and will be under pressure to agree increases of up to £20 billion over five years.

However, Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, said that “a nod and wink from the prime minister” was not enough for patients.

The NHS has not hit any of its main targets for more than two years. Chris Hopson, chief executive of NHS Providers, said: “The levels of performance expected and the savings demanded for next year are beyond reach. While we strongly welcome the prime minister’s commitment to increase long-term funding for the NHS, it makes no immediate difference to the tough task facing trusts for next year.”

Mr Hopson’s report estimates that 3.6 million patients will not be treated within four hours at A&E over the next year and 560,000 will be denied routine surgery within 18 weeks. He said that hospitals could make £3.3 billion in savings next year but that ministers had demanded 20 per cent more than this.

“This creates a toxic culture, based on pretence, where trusts are pressurised to sign up to targets they know they can’t deliver and then miss those targets as the year progresses,” his report said.

The NHS is probably somewhere between 10,000 to 15,000 beds short on a bed base of about 100,000.”

One hospital chief executive suggested that hospital overcrowding pointed to deep social problems. He said: “As a country we don’t look after old people well. We have too many people living by themselves in houses that are unsuitable . . . In the end they get really unwell and call 999.”

Source: The Times, pay wall

Health Cheque Up

£20bn for the NHS over 5 years!

Does that mean that the CCG will cease its destruction of Devon’s NHS services? Does it mean that current numbers are now meaningless?

Or does it mean that the cash will arrive too late to prevent this or not arrive at all?

Or does it mean that most of the cash will be directed to marginal Tory seats before a General Election?

Should Randall-Johnson remain chair of the DCC Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committee (or even be a councillor at all?)

We all know our problems with Randall-Johnson as Chair of DCC’s Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committee (or, if not, we should). Here are just a few of many Owl posts on this councillor and her behaviour as its Chair:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/08/12/conduct-of-health-committee-members-investigated-by-devon-council-diviani-and-randall-johnson-heavily-criticised-for-behaviour/

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/06/24/claire-wrights-report-on-the-disgraceful-dcc-nhs-meeting-and-its-disgraceful-chairing-by-sarah-randall-johnson/

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/08/31/councillor-calls-for-randall-johnson-resignation/

NOW, it seems, she was EXTREMELY reluctant to allow the CCG’s Sustainability and Transformation Plans to be a standing item on her committee’s agenda and inly the intervention of a “committee adviser” led to this being agreed. See Claire Wright’s blog for details:

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/sustainability_and_transformation_cuts_plan_agreed_to_be_an_item_on_every_h

“… Essentially, the NHS in Devon is looking at a £500m overspend by 2020 unless major cuts and centralisation of services take place.

It is absolutely vital that the committee keeps a very close eye on what cuts are to be made and how this is affecting patients. We are their only ears and eyes on this.

When I made this proposal yesterday – that we receive a detailed report at each committee meeting. Chair, Sara Randall Johnson appeared to be reluctant to introduce such a standing item, given all the other issues that needed to be examined.

I could not see her point of view at all. Surely, this is the most important issue facing Devon’s patients today?

Committee adviser, Anthony Farnsworth suggested that councillors have sight of the CCG’s own financial reports relating to the STP on a regular basis and this was a legitimate area of scrutiny. …

This was agreed.

Here’s the webcast – https://devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/318671

What is this woman’s problem? Is it simply that she knee-jerks a “no” on any and every proposal from Independent Claire Wright” – putting personalities before what is best for Devon, its healthcare and its scrutiny? We know she has problems with Ms Wright’s forthright defence of our NHS against cuts and privatisation (though the problem seems to stem from further back when the then Leader of East Devon District Council was ousted from her seat by the likeable, knowledgeable and planning policies aware winning candidate – Claire Wright).

Or is it even more dangerous than that? Putting HER personal political beliefs and ideology above those of others – including moderate DCC Tory councillors – and forcing them on others by whatever means she has at her disposal?

Questions, so many questions, and so few answers.

Campaign group forces further consideration of “integrated care” in Devon

Save Our Hospital Services scored a major victory today when after its demonstrations (including another one today):

Emails, public speaking and media onslaught led to the DCC Health Scrutiny Committee refusing to agree to the commencement of the secretive and undemocratic imposition of an “Integrated Care System” (accelerating privatisation of health and social care) being forced on the county from 1 April 2018 (probably not coincidentally April Fool’s Day).

Well done SOHS!

BUT remember we are in the national local government election period and it may well be that, once this has passed, the Tory enthusiasts for this privatisation by the back door may well rediscover their taste for it!

“Councils face ‘almost impossible struggle’ to fund social care””

“Revenue from council tax and business rates in England will not keep pace with a growing social care need – and the funding gap will significantly increase, the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned today.

Even if council tax revenues increased by 4.5% a year, adult social care spending is likely to amount to half of all revenue from local taxes by 2035, the IFS has predicted.

There is “no easy way to square the circle”, the think-tank recognised in its report Adult social care funding: a local or national responsibility?, “without backtracking on reforms to local government finance and reintroducing general grant funding”.

Grant funding from government is planned to end by 2020, and councils will be expected to rely on council tax and business rates for most of their revenue.

If councils meet their social care costs through local tax revenues “the amount left over for other services – including children’s services, housing, economic development, bin collection – would fall in real terms (by 0.3% a year, on average)”, the IFS warned in the report, funded by the Health Foundation charity.

One in 10 councils are to see their share of the population aged 75 and over increase by 6 percentage points or more over the next 20 years, the IFS noted.

Potential solutions all have drawbacks, the report suggested.

These include a ring-fenced top-up grant from government but this could lead to councils cutting back on how much of their own money is allocated to these services.

If government fully funded social care, this would “remove over one-third of what councils currently spend from local control, reducing residents’ say in local spending decisions”, the report stated.

Polly Simpson, research economist at the IFS, said: “The government has to decide whether it thinks adult social care is ultimately a local responsibility, where councils can offer different levels of service, or a national responsibility with common standards across England.

“If it opts for the latter, it cannot expect a consistent service to be funded by councils’ revenues, which are increasingly linked to local capacity to generate council tax and business rates revenues.”

David Phillips, associate director at IFS, suggested the government could “decide to keep and, over time, increase the general grant funding for councils that it currently plans to abolish in 2020”.

He added: “More radically, it could devolve revenues from other more buoyant taxes, such as income tax, to councils to help fund local services.” …
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/03/councils-face-almost-impossible-struggle-fund-social-care

Hunt fires warning shots about social care

“Jeremy Hunt has promised an upcoming green paper will “jump start” a debate with the public about how social care should be funded in the future.

Speaking to an audience of social care workers on Tuesday, the health secretary recognised the “economics of the publicly funded social care market are highly fragile” and said care models needed to “transform and evolve”.

He said: “We will therefore look at how the government can prime innovation in the market, develop the evidence for new models and services, and encourage new models of care provision to expand at scale.”

Hunt outlined seven key principles the government is considering as it draws up its social care green paper, due to be released before the summer.

He added: “We must make sure there is a long-term financially sustainable approach to funding the whole system.”

He added that this would “take time” but “must not be an excuse to put off necessary reforms”.

“Nor must it delay the debate we need to have with the public about where the funding for social care in the future should come from – so the green paper will jump-start that debate,” Hunt promised.

He also said he would look at making paying for social care fairer and less dependent on the “lottery of which illness” a person gets.

He explained the green paper would look at giving people greater control over the care they received, announcing he would consult on personal health budgets. …”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/03/hunt-vows-social-care-green-paper-will-spark-funding-debate

Campaigners in Huddersfield win right to judicial review of hospital closure

Campaigners against a hospital closure in Huddersfield have been granted a judicial review hearing of the decision.

Hands Off Huddersfield Royal Infirmary said plans from Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust would see the town’s hospital demolished but not replaced.

Its chair Mike Forster said the grounds for judicial review would be flaws in the consultation, inadequate travel and transport provision to alternative hospitals, lack of community care provision and potential breach of the law on equalities.

The campaign group originally applied to the High Court in November.
Forster said: “We would like to thank the people of Huddersfield who have made this legal breakthrough possible through your long standing support.
“To those who told us this was a done deal, you were wrong. If you stand and fight, you can win. This is a huge hurdle we’ve passed but the fight goes on.”

The trust did not respond to a request for comment, but its chair Andrew Haigh told the BBC: “We note the judge’s findings today and we will continue to work with our healthcare partners, local communities, scrutiny and campaign groups.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34637%3Acampaigners-secure-permission-for-legal-challenge-to-hospital-closure&catid=174&Itemid=99

“WHY WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE INTEGRATED CARE SYSTEM, by the Councillor who first exposed the CCGs’ plans”

PRESS RELEASE

“I am the County Councillor who first put the ICS (Integrated Care System) on the Council’s agenda, at the last Health Scrutiny in late January. This is what has led to the item at today’s meeting. Then, the CCGs and the Council’s leadership had failed to bring the proposals to Council ​- ​although they had been agreed since September. ​They did not want debate on the proposals in the Council – still less for the public to know what is planned.​

I shall be telling Health Scrutiny [Committee, meeting today] that even now, despite having 6 months to produce proper information, they still haven’t revealed some of the most ​worrying aspects of the ICS:

funding of services in the new system, how contracts will work, and whether these will lead to privatisation

details of the proposed Local Care Partnerships for N, S, E & W Devon and for Mental Health which are key to the system, and how they will be funded/contracted

the governance of the system – as things stand, Devon County Council could be handing over control of its social care services to unelected quangos (the CCGs)​​

plans for public engagement – the Cabinet paper says this is necessary but there are no proposals.

However, we do know there will be equalisation of funding between Eastern and Western Devon. Because the CCGs say Western Devon is relatively underfunded, this means deeper cuts in Eastern Devon – probably including closures of community hospitals. Scrutiny should reject this ‘equality of misery’.

On governance, I support the proposals of Cllr Hilary Ackland that if integrated commissioning in the ICS is to go ahead, a reformed Health and Wellbeing Board with proper all-party representation should become the integrated commissioning board. Democratic control is not an optional extra.

Devon County Council cannot support these proposals as they stand. Without full answers to our questions, Health Scrutiny should call in the plans.

I should be happy to talk to (journalists) today​. I shall be with the Save Our Hospital protestors ​outside County Hall ​between 12.30 and 1​ or you can phone me on ​07972 760254.

Martin Shaw
Independent East Devon Alliance County Councillor for Seaton & Colyton”

“Barn conversion developments `could heap more pressure on rural infrastructure´ “

“A potential surge in barn conversion homes could heap more pressure on rural schools and roads in England, the Local Government Association (LGA) claims.

The LGA fears that changes to permitted development regulations, which come into force on April 6, may trigger a dramatic increase in the number of conversions.

It said currently, landowners can convert agricultural buildings into three new homes without the need for planning permission, but changes will soon allow conversions of individual agricultural buildings into five new homes.

The LGA said this means an increasing number of larger agricultural to residential conversions could take place without having to get planning permission or contributing towards local services, infrastructure and affordable housing.

It said there has already been a 46% jump in residential conversions from agricultural buildings in England in recent years.

In 2015/16 226 homes were created from agricultural buildings and in 2016/17 this figure was 330, it said.

Councillor Martin Tett, the LGA’s housing spokesman, said: “Councils want to see more affordable homes built quickly and the conversion of offices, barns and storage facilities into residential flats is one way to deliver much-needed homes.

“However, it is vital that councils and local communities have a voice in the planning process.

“At present, permitted development rules allow developers to bypass local influence and convert existing buildings to flats, and to do so without providing affordable housing and local services and infrastructure such as roads and schools.”

He continued: “Relaxations to ‘agri to resi’ permitted developments risk sparking significant increases in the number of new homes escaping planning scrutiny in rural areas.”

Housing Minister Dominic Raab said: “Through strengthening planning rules and targeted investment, we are ensuring we are building the homes the country needs as well as the local services needed by communities.

“In rural communities our changes will mean more flexibility on how best to use existing buildings to deliver much-needed properties.

“This is part of our ambitious plans to get Britain building homes again and ensure they are affordable for local communities.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-5525143/Barn-conversion-developments-heap-pressure-rural-infrastructure.html

“Official figures mask A&E waiting times”

“Tens of thousands more patients spent more than 12 hours in A&E waiting for a bed last year than official figures suggest. Doctors and MPs called for a change to how “trolley waits” were reported in England after an investigation by The Times.

Official numbers show that 2,770 A&E patients had to wait more than 12 hours for a bed last year. These NHS statistics only capture the time between a doctor deciding a patient needs to be admitted and then being found a place on a ward. If the time is recorded between arriving at A&E and being found a bed, the number of patients who had to wait in emergency departments for more than 12 hours leaps to at least 67,406 patients, 24 times higher, according to data obtained under freedom of information laws.

The true figure is likely to be even higher, as only 73 hospitals out of 137 replied to the requests. The Times also asked hospitals for details of the longest wait they had recorded each week. Those revealed about 200 patients waiting more than a day for a bed last year. In December a 103-year-old woman spent 29 hours in A&E before she was admitted to the Great Western Hospital in Swindon, Wiltshire. The trust said that it had been one of the busiest months on record. The longest wait reported to The Times, of almost four days, was a 16-year-old boy at Barking Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust.

Sarah Wollaston, Conservative chairwoman of the health select committee, said that long waits in A&E raised patient safety concerns. “When departments are already at full stretch, having to care for individuals who may be very unwell and waiting for transfer to a more appropriate clinical setting reduces the time clinicians are free to assess and care for new arrivals and this can rapidly lead to spiralling delays,” Dr Wollaston said. “The total length of time that people are spending in emergency departments should be recorded alongside the current figures.”

Paul Williams, a Labour member of the committee, said: “If the clock doesn’t start ticking on ‘trolley waits’ until this decision has been made, then hospitals can legitimately have someone waiting for more than three hours to be seen and assessed, and then another 11 hours on a trolley without this leading to a breach of targets.” In Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, 12-hour waits are recorded from when a patient arrives in the department.

Rachel Power, chief executive of the Patients Association, said: “It’s clear from this data that many patients are enduring even longer waits with their safety, privacy and dignity compromised than the official statistics show.”

Taj Hassan, president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, said: “I think all independent observers would agree that, at the moment, the way we are describing our 12-hour trolley waits is not accurately describing the numbers.”

An NHS England spokesman said: “In the last 12 months to February 2018 the number of 12-hour trolley waits has dropped by more than 20 per cent on the previous year, and this has been achieved while hospitals also successfully looked after 160,000 more A&E patients within the four-hour target this winter compared to last winter.” NHS Digital is set to publish separate monthly statistics on the total number of patients spending more than 12 hours in A&E, whether or not they eventually needed admission. They said there were more than 260,000 during the financial year 2016-17.

Behind the story

Hospitals are expected to treat, admit or discharge 95 per cent of patients within four hours of their arrival at A&E (Kat Lay writes).

However, they have not met that target since July 2015. In January, only 77.1 per cent of people going to larger A&Es were dealt with within four hours.

For patients who require admission — “the sickest group” attending A&E, says the Royal College of Emergency Medicine — it appears to be worse.

At hospitals that provided figures to The Times, on average only 53 per cent of patients requiring admission were found a bed within four hours in January this year.

A lack of social care means that many of the beds that such patients need to be moved on to are taken up by people who do not need to be in hospital any longer, doctors complain.

Source: The Times (pay wall)

Control of community care in Nottinghamshire falls to controversial US company

“NHS Protectors’ worst fears are being realised as USA’s Centene is likely to control Greater Nottingham Accountable Care System, by taking over the NHS Commissioner’s role in a £206m community services contract.

At the very time that its discredited subsidiary Ribera Salud – which is being kicked out of Spain by the Valencia Green/Podemos/Socialist government – has appointed former New Labour Health Secretary Alan Milburn as a Director and has sent lots of executives to UK to help Centene UK with its plan of buying primary care and mental health companies.

The UK subsidiary of Centene – a US sub-prime health insurance profiteer that has got rich off managing Obamacare’s publicly-funded Medicaid programmes which provide health insurance for people on a low income – is likely to take over the NHS commissioner’s role in the £206m, 7 year contract for out-of-hospital community services, that Nottingham City Clinical Commissioning Group recently awarded to Nottingham City Partnership Community Interest Company. …”

This seems to bear out NHS protectors’ worst fears that Accountable Care Systems or Organisations are Trojan horses designed to import US companies into key controlling positions in these new types of local NHS and social care services.

Centene UK, assisted by executives from its discredited Spanish subsidiary Ribera Salud, is also studying the acquisition of primary care and mental health companies in the United Kingdom, according to recent reports from Valencia Plaza.

Ribera Salud recently appointed the former New Labour Health Secretary Alan Milburn to its Board of Directors, to help it “continue with its expansion plans.” In addition, during the recent visit to Valencia of the United Kingdom’s ambassador to Spain, Simon Manley, a British manager of Ribera Salud contacted him to explain the company’s plans. …

Nottingham City Clinical Commissioning Group will become part of the Nottinghamshire/Greater Nottingham Accountable Care System. This will be:

“a single risk bearing entity to managing [sic] the entire care continuum. The successful provider must form part of the ACS and…will be expected to help shape and deliver its part of the single risk bearing entity.”

This sounds like the Accountable Care Organisation contract – which NHS England is not approving now and which is the subject of two Judicial Reviews in the Spring and a public consultation at some unspecified point in time.

The contract notification says that when the Accountable Care System is implemented, this will require a contract variation which:

“will require the successful provider to provide its consent to the potential future transfer of the CCG’s role under the contract.”

This contract variation will mean transferring the contract from Nottingham Clinical Commissioning Group to another provider, or the Care Integrator (Centene UK).

It seems that Nottingham City Clinical Commissioning Group has taken a gamble on the likelihood that NHS England will be approving the Accountable Care Organisation contract by the time the Sustainability and Transformation Partnership has figured out its business case to consider the options for partner organisations in managing the Accountable Care System components and has secured legal and procurement support to advise on this.”

https://calderdaleandkirklees999callforthenhs.wordpress.com/2018/03/19/usas-centene-to-take-over-nhs-commissioners-function-in-206m-community-services-contract-as-accountable-care-system-sets-up/

Seaton and Area Health Matters meeting, Friday 23 March 9 am1 pm – registration required

From the blog of DCC East Devon Alliance councillor Martin Shaw:

“A reminder to all involved in local community groups, especially those with an interest in health and wellbeing in the broadest senses, that Seaton and Area Health Matters will convene in the Town Hall on Friday 23rd March, 9 for 9.30 until 1 pm. There is still time to register!

Book here:

https://goo.gl/forms/7laMUjhByt8F0w053

You are invited to participate in this community led event with key stakeholders around the future health and wellbeing of all the people in our communities, in response to the new landscape affecting Seaton and surrounding area as a result of NHS and Government policies advocating Place-Based Care in health provision and cross-sector collaborative working with community groups

The aim: To discuss what we know, where there are gaps/challenges and how, as a community we will address these to ensure collaborative approaches to co-design and co-produce local health services/activities that meet the needs of all the people in our communities.

Invitees: Management and senior level employees and volunteers / trustees from community, voluntary and social enterprise sector as well as public and private organisations.

Area to include: Seaton, Colyford & Colyton, Beer, Axmouth, Branscombe

PROGRAMME:

Welcome: Mayor of Seaton – Cllr Jack Rowland

Community Context:
• Dr Mark Welland – Chairman of Seaton & District Hospital League of Friends
• Roger Trapani – Community Representative, Devon Health and Care Forum
• Charlotte Hanson – Chief Officer, Action East Devon

Strategic and Services Overview – Place Based Care:
• Em Wilkinson-Bryce – Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust
• Chris Entwistle – Health and Social Care Community Services
• Dr Jennie Button – Social Prescribing Lead – Ways 2 Wellbeing project in Seaton

Workshop, Networking and Discussion will form the main part of this event:
• Workshop 1 – What is working well and what are the challenges for Seaton and surrounding area?
• Workshop 2 – Working together to improve health and wellbeing outcomes? What support do we need?”

Reminder – Seaton and Area Health Matters meeting in Seaton Town Hall on Friday 23rd from 9.

Devon County Council: the place democracy goes to die

Facebook post by DCC Lib Dem Councillor Brian Greenslade

Late last year we started to learn about plans by the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt and NHS England to introduce by the 1st April Accountable Care Organisations to replace CCG’s in the Health Service. These organisations would provide health and social care services. Bringing these services together makes sense but democratic oversight appeared to be an after thought. ACO’s seemed to be based on similar type Organisations in the US.

What was clear was that little or no public scrutiny of these proposals had happened. Congratulations to Sarah Wollaston MP Chairman of the Health Select Committee who then intervened to stall this initiative to allow the Parliamentary Health Select Committee chance to scrutinise the proposals. The same was true at Devon County Hall where nothing about this was brought to the attention of members of the Health Scrutiny Committee.

Opposition to ACO’s started to brew up so then suddenly the Government and NHS England started to talk about integrated care systems instead which apparently are different. How different is not clear and I am concerned that this could be a back door attempt to introduce ACO’s.

Yesterday at the DCC Cabinet a report by the Chief Executive about Integrated Care Systems was considered. It failed to answer key questions but it was clear that changes from April were on the way.

My Lib Dem colleagues and I hotly contested the recommendations and called for time to have this report sent to Scrutiny first. This was voted down by the Tory majority.

We reacted to this by calling in the Executive decision for scrutiny. This as the effect of delaying any decision on this being made until 11th April at the earliest to consider representations by Scrutiny.

Amazingly the Tories are rushing scrutiny through by making it an urgent item for the Health Scrutiny meeting on the 22nd of March giving little time for consideration of this critical issue for the health of the people of Devon.

Democratic standards that the Lib Dem’s stand for mean little to Devon’s ruling Tories!”

DCC Councillor Martin Shaw (East Devon Alliance) updates on NHS changes

This is a long article but if you want to know where we are with NHS changes in Devon this gives you all the information.

Our pressure has led to Devon NHS joining a national retreat from privatising Accountable Care Organisations. However the Devon Integrated Care System will still cap care, with weak democratic control – we need time to rethink

We must thank ALL our Independent Councillors – particularly DCC Independent Councillor Claire Wright, DCC Councillor Martin Shaw (East Devon Alliance) and EDDC Councillor Cathy Gardner (East Devon Alliance) for the tremendous work they have done (and continue to do) in the face of the intransigence (and frankly, unintelligence) of sheep-like Tory councillors.

At EDDC Tory Councillors told their Leader to back retaining community hospitals, so he went to DCC and voted to close them (receiving no censure for this when Independents called for a vote of no confidence).

At the DCC, Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committee Tory members were 10-line whipped by its Chair Sarah Randall-Johnson to refuse a debate on important changes and to vote for accelerated privatisation with no checks or balances.

At DCC full council – well Tory back-benchers might just as well send in one councillor to vote since they all seem to be programmed by the same robotics company!

Jeremy Hunt personally intervened to ensure Virgin hospital contract in his constituency

“Jeremy Hunt, the new health secretary, personally intervened to encourage the controversial takeover of NHS hospitals in his constituency by a private company, Virgin Care, raising fresh concerns last night over his appointment.

Hunt, who replaced Andrew Lansley in last week’s cabinet reshuffle, was so concerned by a delay to the £650m deal earlier this year that he asked for assurances from NHS Surrey officials that it would be swiftly signed.

Virgin Care, which is part-owned by Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Group, subsequently agreed on a five-year contract in March to run seven hospitals along with dentistry services, sexual health clinics, breast cancer screening and other community services. The takeover took place despite concerns being raised in the local NHS risk register about the impact on patient care following the transfer of management from the NHS to one of the country’s largest private healthcare firms, until recently known as Assura Medical.

The director of nursing highlighted the danger of “significant issues” emerging during the first year of Virgin Care control, which NHS Surrey has tried to ameliorate through contractual controls. There was also prolonged wrangling between NHS Surrey and Virgin Care over the terms of the deal, including staff’s terms of employment. However, during the lengthy delay before the deal was agreed, Hunt intervened to ask for assurances from the head of the primary care trust “that the delay is to ensure the best possible outcome for patients and staff”. Writing on his website about the issue, he added: “I hope that Assura and NHS Surrey are able to complete the transfer of services soon, but I am glad they are crossing every T and dotting every I.”

The shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, said last night that the revelation would add to concerns about Hunt’s appointment and his affinity to big business so soon after the furore over the minister’s relationship with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp while he was culture secretary during the attempted takeover of BSkyB. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/09/jeremy-hunt-virgin-hospital-deal

“NHS England treats too many patients as an emergency, watchdog warns”

“The ageing population and other unexplained factors mean hospitals are now treating 5.8 million patients as emergency admissions every year, 24% more than a decade ago, the NAO found. Together they cost the health service £13.7bn, almost a 10th of its budget, and account for 33.59m bed days.

Its hard-hitting report, published on Friday, praises NHS England’s handling of the extra numbers but also criticises its failure to put in place enough services outside of hospitals to keep patients healthier.

The watchdog believes this lack of provision underpins its finding that 24% of emergency admissions are avoidable, implying that £3.43bn a year of NHS funds may be being wasted on people who, with better care, would not have ended up falling ill.

GPs offered cash to refer fewer people to hospital
The NAO said: “The impact on hospitals of rising emergency admissions poses a serious challenge to both the service and financial position of the NHS.”

It acknowledged that hospitals have done well to reduce the overall impact of rising emergency admissions in recent years, in particular by reducing patients’ length of stay and treating more patients as day cases.

But it warned: “[The health service] cannot know if its approach is achieving enduring results until it understands whether reported increases in readmissions are a sign that some people admitted as an emergency are being discharged too soon.

“The NHS also still has too many avoidable admissions and too much unexplained variation. A lot of effort is being made and progress can be seen in some areas, but the challenge of managing emergency admissions is far from being under control.”

The NAO cast serious doubt on whether key government-backed NHS initiatives to keep people out of increasingly overloaded hospitals have proved effective. The NHS’s longstanding policy of reducing its supply of beds has made things even more difficult for hospitals trying to deal with rising emergency admissions, the watchdog added.

The latest NHS data published on Thursday on how health services are coping with winter’s intense pressures shows that 95.3% of hospital beds were occupied last week – more than 10% more than the limit considered necessary for patient safety.

The NAO also voiced concern that the number of emergency admissions varies from 73 to 155 per 1,000 overall admissions in different parts of England, suggesting NHS trusts’ admission policies appear to be inconsistent and possibly wasteful.

NHS organisations and health unions endorsed the NAO’s conclusion that health service leaders’ failure to create and deliver more services in and nearer patients’ homes, despite promises to do so, was a key factor behind the upward trend in admissions.

The number of nurses working in NHS community services fell by 15% between 2010 and 2017, the Royal College of Nursing pointed out.

“People, particularly older people, are not getting the support they need in the community, which leads to more emergency admissions and dangerous levels of bed occupancy when demand is high, as we have seen this winter”, said Donna Kinnair, the RCN’s director of nursing, policy and practice.

Saffron Cordery, the deputy chief executive of NHS Providers, which represents hospitals, said proper community services were “central to the [NHS’s] ambitions” to transform the way it cares for patients. However, she added, efforts to do so had been hampered by underfunding and such care not being seen as a priority.

Prof Keith Willett, NHS England’s medical director for acute care, said: “As the report states, there are 12% fewer A&E patients being admitted than was predicted at the start of the decade, and hospitals, community trusts and GPs trialling new models of care have meaningfully reduced admissions compared with their peers.

“In addition, growth in the cost of managing emergency admissions has been less than a third of the growth in demand.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/02/nhs-england-too-many-patients-as-emergency-nao-warns

“Judge agrees costs capping in action over NHS accountable care organisations”

“Campaigners including scientist Professor Stephen Hawking have secured a costs order for their judicial review of the government’s planned creation of accountable care organisations (ACO) in the NHS.

In January the claimants gained permission to bring the case against Health and Social Care Secretary Jeremy Hunt and the National Health Service Commissioning Board.

Cheema-Grubb J held that the crowd funded campaign met the statutory test for a costs capping order, being a group of responsible individuals acting in the public interest without a personal interest in the outcome.

The campaigners will challenge the lawfulness of accountable care organisations, which they argue Parliament has not given the Department of Health the power to create.

During the January hearing the court declined to cap costs and the campaigners feared they could face a £450,000 bill were they to lose.

Cheema-Grubb J said it was highly likely that some of the concerns raised in the judicial review had a high degree of public interest and accepted evidence that the case would be dropped in the absence of a cost order.

The claimants could not be criticised for being unreasonable in not proceeding in a case with open-ended potential liabilities, the judge said.

She also noted that Mr Hunt and the NHS were publicly funded through taxpayers’ money in defending the case.

Under the order, if the campaigners lose their liability for Mr Hunt’s and the NHS’s costs would be capped at £80,000 each.

If they won, the two defendants’ liability to pay their costs would be capped at £115,000.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php