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

GP-private incentive deal slashes costs by £20 per patient

By Gareth Iacobucci | 25 Jan 2012

Exclusive GPs have worked with a private company to dramatically cut the cost of patient care under a controversial scheme providing practices with incentives to deliver savings, Pulse can reveal.

Three clinical commissioning groups in Surrey, together with private consultancy firm Integrated Health Partners (IHP), have delivered savings of up to £20 per patient through wide-ranging efficiencies, including cuts in drug bills, referrals and hospital bed days.

IHP describes the venture as the UK's first managed-care organisation. It pays part of its fee for offering efficiency support to GPs as ‘rewards for good performance', and plans to develop a formal profit-share to split savings. It insists most savings are reinvested in patient care.

IHP has been working under contract for the three CCGs, but is about to finalise plans for a limited liability partnership with 10 GP practices covering 100,000 patients.

It has so far reviewed 50 care pathways and said the CCGs had reduced referral rates by an average of around 5% last year, and in one – Guildford and Waverley – bed days fell by 10%. It also found significant savings by cutting emergency admissions and the cost of elective procedures, and through ‘aggressive medicines management'.

Ratna Singh, corporate development director of IHP, said: ‘On profits, a small slice is shared with GPs as reward for good performance. Performance is measured on agreed criteria of clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction and financial performance.

‘Most surplus will go on re-investment – our frail elderly work has included extra nurses, geriatrician time, telehealth and 24/7 community support.'

The firm said in 2010/11 around £2 per patient was invested in Guildford and Waverley CCG, and it was on course to deliver a £3.7m surplus, equating to ‘more than £20 per patient'. The other two CCGs – Mid Surrey and East Elmbridge – were on course to underspend by 0.4% and 0.02% respectively, compared with an average overspend at other Surrey CCGs.

Dr Oliver Bernath, managing director of IHP, said savings had been achieved without restricting referrals, through discussions and education sessions, monthly practice visits, and GP guidelines on its website: ‘It's not rocket science – it's almost pedantic management of things. Our incentives are aligned with GPs. We figure out together how we do this and set internal targets by practice. It is not somebody else imposing upon them.'

Dr Tim Richardson, a GP in Epsom, Surrey, and former chair of Mid Surrey CCG, said IHP had delivered ‘quality and robust business intelligence': ‘What's been saved well outstrips what's been spent.'

But GPC negotiator Dr Chaand Nagpaul said GPs needed to be ‘very careful' not to compromise themselves in such deals: ‘It is vital GPs do not put themselves in a position where the public might question the motives of their commissioning decisions.'

Dr Louise Irvine, a GP in Lewisham, south-east London, said: ‘It is totally unacceptable that GPs should make money on commissioning savings.'

How IHP has driven down costs

Reductions in referrals – around 5% on average across three CCGs.

Reductions in emergency admissions - costs across three CCGs 5% below budget

Reductions in bed days – 12.5% this year

Reductions in the cost of elective procedures

Driving down prescribing costs

Doubling the rate of patients registered on the gold standard framework for end-of-life care

Scrutinising around 50 pathways in areas such as urology, gynaecology, orthopaedics

Source: Integrated Health Partners

READERS' COMMENTS

Anonymous, PCT,
25 Jan 2012
Which Practice would I like to be a patient of? The one that assesses if I need treatment or the one that has an interest in me not getting treatment?


PCT Finance Manager
Average (4Votes)
Top
Anonymous, GP Partner,
25 Jan 2012
1st time in your life, you will get this chance to make your own decision.
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, Manager,
25 Jan 2012
Interesting how there is no mention of the PCT here. Since CCGs are not yet statutorily in existence, mainly due to the health bill still not becoming law, I presume that the contract exists with the PCT and not the CCGs. Also I presume that a significant quanity of the associated work will have involved the PCT staff, supporting the CCGs. Convenient perhaps for IHP to ignore ? Dont let the facts get in the way of a good story
Average (5Votes)
Top
Anonymous, GP Partner,
25 Jan 2012
It's a sad fact that all treatments cause harm as well as do good. I would rather be with a practice that is cautious about offering me treatment that may not be necessary rather than one which just passes the buck to secondary care and fails to see the harms done by medicine as well as the good. Anonymous PCT finance manager clearly isn't up to speed with the Atlas of NHS variation and the concept of Value in healthcare. Give me a practice with a reason to keep the brakes on medical intervention any day.
Average (2Votes)
Top
Anonymous, Sessional/Locum GP,
25 Jan 2012
You don't really believe this is a scheme to avoid patient harm through cutting referral etc. Why would IHP have any interest in that? Don't be naive- it's money, as usual- the only motive for any intervention these days
Average (4Votes)
Top
Anonymous, Salaried GP,
26 Jan 2012
if the savings have come from rigid pathway implementation then all well and good and they deserve to profit from it. however it depends if the pathways that they have insititued deviate from the map of medicine or from NICE etc. if they do deviate it then depends on whether they have gone through a governance structure that includes patient representation. it they haven't gone through that process then any GP that implements that pathway will be fully responsible for any adverse outcome that results and they will be fried in a court of law. The fact that they have taken money for this will not stand them in good favour. We should all be very careful what we sign up to.

- anonymous salaried!
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, PCT,
26 Jan 2012
I dont see the problem with this. Many GP's have received cash incentives for reducing referrals through PBC schemes and incentives from the PCT. The only change is that the incentive is now coming from a private company
Average (0Votes)
Top
Anonymous, Other healthcare professional,
26 Jan 2012
Reductions in referrals: yup, can be done if done carefully; reductions in emergency admissions: yup, that's a P in QIPP; driving down prescribing costs: yup, a relentless obsession with generics can do that. But: reductions in bed days and reductions in the cost of elective procedures, these are *provider* issues. How does IHP get the providers to be cheaper? And what about tariff?
Average (2Votes)
Top
Harry Longman, Work for third sector,
26 Jan 2012
There just might be something good in this. It's easy to be cynical about motives, but its a very cheap shot to question others and not even say who you are. I'd like to see two things:
- an independent evaluation of the IHP work - we might learn something which could have large scale benefits if the claims are right
- an end to anonymous posts unless exceptional risks are faced by the individual.
Average (1Vote)
Top
Brian Fisher, Sessional/Locum GP,
27 Jan 2012
I am impressed. I would like to know more about how it was achieved. There are other places doing similar work without private company support - Wyre Forest, for instance.
Average (1Vote)
Top
Bharat Patel, Working for a GP Consortium,
31 Jan 2012
I agree with the positive thinkers. If someone has a seemingly good idea, you can either knock it or get on the phone and find out how they did it.

Then you replicate it, or even better, improve on it and tell others how you did it. Repeat this prescription at least once a day and you'll get better in no time at all ! (pun intended)
Average (1Vote)
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