This site is intended for health professionals only
Wednesday 23 May 2012
Facebook Twiter Linkedin

GP leaders call for commissioning groups to cover more than a million patients

By Gareth Iacobucci | 09 Dec 2011

The GPC and RCGP have called for a wholesale restructure of clinical commissioning groups across the country, with mergers to ensure all groups cover a population of between one and five million patients, in a bid to prevent GPs 'losing the power to commission independently'.

The move marks a dramatic shift in policy for the GPC, which had previously urged CCGs to have a minimum population of 500,000, and is now calling for ‘PCT cluster-sized' federations of CCGs with a shared governance structure.The GPC said the move was necessary to prevent smaller CCGs becoming 'dependant on external support'.

The NHS Operating Framework recently gave SHA clusters until March 2012 to ensure that ‘any outstanding configuration issues' are ‘resolved, meaning GP leaders are effectively urging CCGs to merge within the next three months.

GPC deputy chair Dr Richard Vautrey joined RCGP chair Dr Clare Gerada at Pulse's commissioning roundtable this week in calling for the change, which they argue is required to give CCGs a fighting chance in the new NHS given the recent announcement of a £25 per head management fee for commissioning groups.

Dr Gerada said: ‘One to five million population…is the only way. Then you can start to have sensible people on your commissioning, then you can start to have population base, you can start to be employing the right people.'

When asked whether he agreed with Dr Gerada's summation, Dr Vautrey said: ‘Absolutely. The reality is that CCGs, if they are serious about having any influence at all in the new world, need to coalesce into structures that are equivalent to the old PCT clusters that are there at the moment.'

GPC chair Dr Laurence Buckman today issued a letter to the profession outlining the GPC's plan to fight for a ‘substantial increase' in the management cost, which has led the GPC to alter its advice on how large CCGs should be. Click here to read the full letter.

Dr Buckman writes in the letter: ‘Adequate funding is essential to allow the CCG to be able to function effectively. We do not consider the proposed £25 per head to be sufficient and will be seeking a substantial increase in that sum.'
‘We have previously advised that CCGs should have a minimum population of 500,000, but with strong local structures to ensure they can be truly representative and sensitive to local needs.'

‘However, in the light of the current proposals, we are now recommending that CCGs should be proactive and come together to form a CCG of PCT or even PCT cluster size. It would be big enough to employ its own staff with the necessary skills and expertise to be an effective commissioning body. Staff would work for the smaller sub-groups, (the current CCGs), ensuring they were both protected and empowered within the devolved federation of the larger group.'

‘They could continue to work in the way GPs are telling us they want, but without the need to create unaffordable and duplicate governance structures. This would not be re-creating a PCT, but would be a group led by clinicians who would ensure the smaller sub-groups were really empowered and enabled to take account of local needs.'

Dr Buckman said the GPC would ‘support GPs who want to remain in smaller groups to ensure genuine practice engagement' but added: ‘We believe the way to achieve this is for current CCGs to work together in this federated structure within one statutory body. This would mitigate the risk of smaller CCGs becoming dependent on external support, and almost certainly losing the power to commission independently in an effective way.'

Click here to read the full letter from Dr Laurence Buckman.
 

READERS' COMMENTS

Vinci Ho, GP Partner,
09 Dec 2011
Seriously, you really want to ask :
(a) Are we moving in circles or are we really moving forward
(b) If we are to move forward , what is the difference between this and PCT/SHA system in terms of personnels and decision making ?
(c) Is the ethos of answering local needs by GP commissioning realistically negated and compromised by such a poor funding rate ?
Average (1Vote)
Top
jb Pittard, GP Partner,
09 Dec 2011
Let's have 12 Regional Health Authorities.....and let's see. What else...how about a Resource Allocation Working Party?

Commissioning is an expensive fiction in a free NHS. Draw yr own conclusions....what became of free dental care
Average (3Votes)
Top
Anonymous, GP Partner,
09 Dec 2011
This is a typical response from those who are losing the arguments and daren't consult their memberships before changing direction. Whoever said any of us wanted this? I seem to remember organisations of this size being opposed by both organisations last time round. We are going to have them anyway as outposts of the NHS Board.
Average (2Votes)
Top
Neil Jessop, Other healthcare professional,
10 Dec 2011
The last commentator is absolutely correct, the regional NCBs will probably replacing the PCT Clusters so having CCGs of similar sizes to these would be a waste of GP commissioners!
Average (2Votes)
Top
Marie-Louise Irvine, GP Partner,
10 Dec 2011
The whole bill was sold to GPs as empowerment "The White Paper said the "headquarters of the NHS will be in the consulting room." It was clearly baloney from the start but some naive GPs fell for it. The idea then was "small is beautiful". But it was clear that CCGs would have to be big to mitigate risk, to negotiate with big providers and to control management costs. Those of us against the bill predicted this from the start. This new proposal is a desperate and pathetic attempt to rescue something of value from a clearly unworkable situation. I am afraid the only solution is to get this bill dropped and one way of making that more likely is for GPs to disengage from CCGs. It is not law yet so there would be no penalties for doing so and it would give a clear message to the government that the bill is unworkable and does not have the support of the majority of GPs, as all the polls have shown. Then we can develop an alternative, under existing legislation, which is to increase clinical input into the existing (or remaining) PCT structures. If the aim is to increase the influence of clinicians in commissioning this can be done without the proposed restructuring with all its costs, muddle and disruption. Sign the e-petition to drop the bill http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22670
Average (8Votes)
Top
K M Hawking, GP Partner,
10 Dec 2011
I thought CCGs are required to be co-terminous with Local Authorities - or at any rate to require special dispensation to cross LA boundaries.
If that is the case, will CCGs of 1-5 million registered patients be authorised by the NHSCB?
The worst of all possible worlds would to be to merge now - set up structures - and have to split up again on 31.3.13
15 and a half months to go - and *still* no clarity on the matters (such as possible sizes, responsibilities - now 60% instead of 80% on NHS budget: what happened to the other 20%? - or even basics such as how GP IT systems are to be funded and managed) which might be considered essential for any business plan.

Ineptitude or deliberate?
Average (1Vote)
Top
Peter Patel, Manager,
11 Dec 2011
The whole proposal for building large CCGs with population size of 500,000 to 1.00 million is without any evidence and highly speculative. The only reason to have large population size is to mitigate financial risks which results from natural fluctuations in demand and unpredictability of high cost patients in smaller groups. This risk can be mitigated by establishing either a central risk pool by the NCB or CCGs coordinating their own risk pool with like minded CCGs around the country. Such risk management does not need mergers and creation of large unworkable CCGs. It is important to note that the country has no real expertise in running such large organisations even based on the current strengths of the failing NHS management structures. We all support the principle of clinically lead commissioning. Will this ever be a reality or just a dream amidst another set of unworkable bureaucratic structures? The reality of the current fast pace of change is that it is without proper consideration for sustainability. It appears on review of the situation is that - “We have around 30,000 GPs who are equivalent to small shopkeepers and mini-supermarket owners. This group is now expected to take on the role equivalent to commissioning, purchasing, contracting, controlling and performance manage giants like Asda, M & S, Safeways, Sainsbury, Aldi and many others – including their customers, products, suppliers and customer outcomes with a multi-million pounds of budget without any real experience or qualifications for carrying out these functions except for being clinicians and presumed trust of their patients. And all this has to be done with added complex regulatory and bureaucratic structures, most of which have never been tried out before. The first signs of GP disengagement have already emerged. There is growing evidence of distrust between GP colleagues who are involved in power struggle and many are copying the Conservative-Lib-Dem coalition system of power sharing agreements at the expense of small successful CCGs. The whole change is chaotic and has clear foundation of becoming NHS.Healthcare.Confused.com.

Dr Peter Patel, Chief Executive Officer, South Birmingham Independent Commissioners. CCG Board Member – TWICC CCG and Hull Independent CCG
Partner and Development Director – Grange Hill Surgery
Average (2Votes)
Top
Paul Conroy, Practice Manager,
12 Dec 2011
I think the idea is that the legal structure of CCGs will remain the same size, but that we would federate into groups to share management costs and risk?#

Unfortunately, the QIPP agenda has been used to remove the vast majority of the PCTs to make going back utterly impossible. How this has all been allowed without a statutory basis is beyond me. Forget can the bill or vote of no confidence, the Health Secretary and the PM should be impeached for proceeding without a parliamentary mandate.
Average (2Votes)
Top
Anonymous, PCT,
12 Dec 2011
I have no idea what the best size CCG is - frankly I don't care either. There are far more fundamental issues that need to be sorted first. Commissioning and Providing is economic twaddle when connected to healthcare. We need to decide whether we stand for the NHS and are prepared to invest in its future or stand back and let Lansley tear it up.

If you want NHS destruction vote for the continuation of tariff, choice, FTs, AQP and the shiny new expensive Community Trusts that sprang out of PCT Provider arms - (all this lot is part of the Provider/Commissioner economy). You'll soon have most acute hospitals on their knees as the profitable activity goes west.

I conclude that the CCG size is irrelevant as the system will meltdown in any case. In the short term is will be cheaper to have larger organisations because of reduced transaction and structural costs.

PCT Finance Manager
Average (1Vote)
Top
Marie-Louise Irvine, GP Partner,
12 Dec 2011
I agree 100%. The purchaser-provider split and all that came from it such as payment by results, FTs and so on (brought in by the Labour marketeers like Alan Millburn) is responsible for increased transaction costs and supplier induced demand etc. See the opinion of the all-party health select committee in 2010 which concluded that after 20 years of costly failure the purchaser provider split should be abandoned -or words to that effect. We should do what they are doing in Scotland and Wales where they seem to be able to run the NHS well enough without any market mechanisms.
Average (2Votes)
Top

ADD YOUR COMMENTS

Please note You must be a registered user of PulseToday and logged in to add comments. Opinions expressed below are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of PulseToday. Comments are considered in the public domain and may be used in future Pulse coverage. We accept no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for the accuracy or the content of member comments.

Comment*

You must be logged in to add a comment.Clickhere to login.

SIGN UP FOR EMAIL NEWSLETTERS

Keep up-to-date with the latest changes to the NHS, CPD and clinical guidelines. Sign up below or find out more.

POLL

Is self-care the answer to the NHS efficiency drive? Read the full story here