This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

Gold, incentives and meh

Local GPs block CCG merger due to 'historical debt' issues

GP leaders in Staffordshire have taken steps to block the merger of their CCG with five others due to budget fears, Pulse’s sister publication Healthcare Leader has learned.

The six CCGs that proposed to merge include North Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, East Staffordshire, Stafford and Surrounds, Cannock Chase and South East Staffordshire and Seisdon Peninsula.

However, North Staffordshire LMC emailed members urging them to vote against the proposal after it deemed there was ‘no potential net benefit’ for practices or patients for the merger to go ahead.

The LMC’s chair, Dr Paul Scott, told Healthcare Leader: ‘Our biggest concerns were dilution and loss of the deprivation weighting for the north of the county, which is required to meet the needs of the population we serve.

‘Staffordshire, as a whole, is under budget by at least 3.5%, which means this was re-dividing an already too-small cake.

‘There was also the additional risk of being subsumed into the south of the county’s very substantial historic debt, which our population is not liable for.’

The NHS Long-Term Plan intends for integrated care systems (ICSs) to absorb existing CCGs and cover the country by 2021 – which will see one CCG per ICS. This will result in fewer commissioners being responsible for larger geographical areas.

According to North Staffordshire LMC, chronic underfunding and a ‘background of need and deprivation’ in northern CCGs means that it will be a ‘real challenge’ to have proportionate GP representation in an ICS.

In an email to members, the LMC said: ‘after careful consideration we have concluded that there is no potential net benefit for either patients or GP practices to merge the six CCGs into a single CCG.

‘An effective ICS can be set up with the current configuration of CCGs, using a Northern Staffordshire footprint, which we would support. Therefore, we advise you to reject this proposal.’

This summer, the BMA wrote to NHS England demanding that mergers only go ahead after receiving approval from their member practice.

In a joint statement, North Staffordshire CCG and the five others involved in the proposed merger said: ‘Each of the GP memberships of the six CCGs of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent have voted on proposals to create a Single Strategic Commissioning Organisation (SSCO) as per the arrangements outlined in their local constitutions.

‘These votes have been counted and independently verified by the LMC. The result of the voting remains confidential until presented to the Governing Bodies in Common on Thursday evening (19 September), where a decision on the next steps will be taken.’

Readers' comments (8)

  • Vinci Ho

    Nine lids to cover ten cups , to start with .
    What is common sense of making this even worse by merging all into one ?
    Do the arithmetic: 9x6= 54 lids to cover 60 cups then , ha ha ha

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I'm sure this is happening all over the country where any mergers are contemplated - where Primary Care and GP practices in some areas have received historically more money per patient than others in neighbouring areas; the relatively affluent (if we could call it that) areas will never voluntarily merge finances with less "affluent" areas.
    The system is inequitable and this kind of tinkering helps no-one.
    Bottom line = More money is needed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Just to correct the article North Staffs and Stoke receive above the NHS fair share allocation, the 4 South CCGs receive less

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • CCGs replaced PCTs in 2013. I suppose lasting six years is about standard for the craziness of NHS continual reorganisation.
    Remember this all you headless chickens running around excited about PCNs.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • policenthieves 11.49 , well said . Naive new ( and a tragically large amount of older ones too) GPs getting excited about PCNs -- just another transfer of work with reduced funding to GPs. In the meantime CCGs are saving the world from global warming , and getting ready for techno app heaven.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Number , not amount . Can't even write in my first language .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Only the BMA is excited about PCNs. Most GPs think it will fail. Just the usual useless changes for the worse.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • PCNs are the new Fundholding. I was a "first waver". Lots of distraction: throw all the bits into the air: it takes about 3-4 years to see if anything is better and when it all lands on the floor again, we count up the pieces to find we have no more actual resources or improved outcomes than before. Keeps us busy though and away from lobbying for the real changes we need. Ha!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say