Agenda item

To receive and note the NHS publication ‘Delivering the Forward View: NHS planning guidance 2016/17 – 20120/21 that will have implications for the work of the Board.  Sue Lock, Managing Director, Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group will introduce the guidance.  

The Board received and noted the NHS publication ‘Delivering the Forward View: NHS planning guidance 2016/17 – 20120/21 that would have implications for the work of the Board.  Sue Lock, Managing Director, Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group introduced the key elements of the guidance. 

The guidance supported the Government’s NHS Spending Review in England in implementing the 5 year forward view, addressing financial sustainability and increasing the quality of service delivery.

The planning guidance required the production of a local one year Operational Plan to identify what would be done to meet the statutory guidance targets and constitutional standards and how the improved standards would be achieved.

The guidance also required the production of a Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) for 2016-2021 written as an overarching place based plan for the local population in relation to the health and social care economy as a whole.  The Plan is required to be submitted by June 2016 and would be formally assessed in July.  It had been agreed that the placed based element would cover the Leicester Leicestershire and Rutland footprint.   In essence, the plan was similar to the Better Care Together but with additional strands covering specialised services, primary care services and a prevention plan element to the STP.

It was very different to the pre consultation business case developed for the

Better Care Together Plan, although the identification of best practice and the relationships formed across the health and social care community for BCT had all helped to put LLR on a good footing for preparing the STP.

It was noted that:-

a)         The funding in 2017/18 would be dependent upon the quality of the STP and the clarity of defining what will be done in the future and this would influence how quickly funds could be accessed.  Further details were awaited on this process.

b)         The Operational Plan had a requirement for 9 ‘must dos’ for 2016/17 and would need to show in detail how the activity and finance would work together to achieve the objectives. 

c)         The CCG had received definite allocations for the next 3 years and indicative allocations for the following 2 years.  Although there was an uplift in allocations received, this did not represent any additional purchasing power in real terms as the cost of purchasing services had also risen.  The CCG had received approximately £12m extra funding but to standstill and buy the same activity would cost approximately £11.8m.

d)         All CCG’s were being encouraged to create stability within providers and £1.8b nationally had been allocated to provide flexibility to providers and to allow the CCGs to work with providers to get some transformation for the following year.   The challenge was to reduce deficit, improve access and progress the transformation. 

e)         The CCG had met with the Chief Executives of UH, and LPT to see what the challenges were for the future, what the improvement trajectories would look like and how to take the process forward within the financial settlements received.

f)          Although the CCG had received an extra allocation for Primary Care Contracts, the core allocation now included a number of areas of expenditure where previously non-recurrent allocations had been received; such as GP IT systems.  The net impact was less than had been hoped for.

g)         The New Assessment Framework for CCGs had been received recently and was currently out for consultation.  A copy would be forwarded to the Chair for information.  The CCG’s Director of Strategy and Implementation was co-ordinating the production of the plan across LLR and representatives of local authorities had been asked to link in with this process.  There would be a focus towards the constitutional targets, which would be A&E, cancer, EMAS handovers and waiting times for elective surgery.

h)        There had been discussions on whether there should be a local work-stream in BCT on prevention but it was felt that this should be driven at a strategic level by the Board.

RESOLVED

                        1)         The approach being taken be noted and endorsed.

2)         That the suggestion that prevention should be led by the Board at a strategic level be endorsed and that any non-recurrent Better Care Fund money be targeted at preventative measures.