This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pul jul aug2020 cover 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

Independents' Day

Local enhanced services worth millions to be opened up to competition from April

Exclusive CCGs and local authorities are planning to put local enhanced services worth millions of pounds out to tender from April, in a move which is set to force many practices to compete for a significant proportion of their existing funding, a Pulse investigation reveals.

Some practices could lose as much as 10-15% of their income at a stroke, with commissioners planning to put services such as anticoagulation clinics, spirometry and minor surgery out to full tender or under Any Qualified Provider - and GPs facing a mountain of paperwork if they are to have a chance of retaining the contracts.

It comes as several private companies including Alliance Boots and Bupa told Pulse they were interested in competing to provide some of the services.

Pulse approached every CCG in England asking them how they plan to recommission existing local enhanced services (LESs) from April. Some 48 CCGs replied, with 23 having a made a decision so far. Of these, nine said they plan to put some or all of their LESs out to tender – with the contracts collectively worth just over £2m.

Extrapolated across England the figures suggest contracts worth around £18.6m could be opened up to the market by CCGs.

In addition, two out of 12 local authorities who told Pulse they have made a decision are also planning to put services out to tender – for one council alone this represents services worth £500,000.

Under NHS England procurement rules, CCGs have to put all their LESs out to tender or procure them under AQP unless they can prove the service can only be offered by a single provider. Recommissioned LESs will be rebranded as ‘community service contracts’ (CSCs).

In Essex, three CCGs – Basildon & Brentwood, Castlepoint & Rochford and Thurrock – are putting all their current LESs, worth a total of £753,000, out to tender via the AQP route. They claim they are doing this to avoid ‘potential conflicts of interest’, saying: ‘It was considered that the AQP process was a fair and transparent way of commissioning these services long term.’

Meanwhile, NHS Stockport CCG could put 40% of its LESs out to full tender, potentially hitting local GPs’ bottom line to the tune of £383,200.

Dr David Gilbert, chair of Stockport LMC, said practices had major concerns over the move: ‘The competition regulations mean our CCG is worried that they are having to put services out to tender, despite wanting to keep the money in general practice.’

‘Obviously we’re not happy that the CCG is in this position, and it is money potentially lost to general practice in Stockport. But what we can do about it is another matter. The income we receive from LESs accounts for 10-15% of the practice’s income.’

Derby City Council told Pulse it is putting all of its LESs worth £501,000 out to tender, including £75,000 worth of contracts currently commissioned by NHS South Derbyshire CCG that will pass to the local authority in April. Neighbouring Nottinghamshire County Council is putting two of its six LESs out to AQP.

However some areas have ruled out opening up services to competition. NHS Isle of Wight CCG, which plans to keep all of its services with GPs, told Pulse: ‘The majority of our services are small but vital. All our GP practices are providing them, there are high levels of patient satisfaction and we can demonstrate clear cost-effectiveness.’

‘The costs of tendering would outstrip any benefits our patients would have gained and in all likelihood would have cost us more.’

Most of the CCGs and local authorities contacted by Pulse said they had yet to decide whether they will put their services out to tender. GPC deputy chair Dr Richard Vautrey said: ‘The longer CCGs leave these decisions, the greater the uncertainty for practices and the less opportunity GPs will have to plan for what happens if they want to maintain their services beyond April. Three months is a short time for them to jump through the various hoops that will be required.’

Meanwhile several private providers told Pulse they were potentially interested in competing to run the services.

Andrew Willetts, public sector and healthcare services director at Celesio UK, which owns the Lloydspharmacy brand, told Pulse the changes to enhanced services ‘give Celesio UK a unique opportunity to innovate and develop solutions for the NHS which not only enhance care for patients, but also provide efficient and cost-effective alternatives’.

Alliance Boots said it would looks at potential contracts ‘on a case-by-case basis’ to see if there is ‘anything close to our core offering of medicines optimisation services, screening and monitoring for patients with long-term conditions and public health services where commissioned by CCGs such as flu immunisation’.

A Bupa spokesperson said the company was ‘increasingly looking to work with the public sector in areas where we have expertise, such as out-of-hospital care and chronic disease management’, while Virgin Care would not rule out bidding but said that LESs were not its ‘main focus currently’.

Readers' comments (20)

  • The Privateers are on the starboard bow , beat to quarters -run out the guns and sink the hunts .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Further privatisation via the back door. This time General Practice. And the truly shocking thing - we've fallen straight into the government's trap and are doing it to ourselves!(we are the CCGs after all).

    Next step: Put out GMS/PMS contracts to AQP on a (likey) 3 yearly basis (yes, I know we can't do this to ourselves via the CCGs but NHSE sure can......)

    See how the NHS is deconstructed steadily but surely and through a process of "divide and rule" we're all complicit.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • we've fallen straight into the government's trap and are doing it to ourselves!

    We didn't fall into anything. The govt passed this despite widespread opposition, we all knew this was coming but couldn't really do much about it (they changed the law to let them do this).

    The result will be that practices now also drop non-funded services (ear syringing, removal of stitches post op etc) and patients will suffer. But then, it's what they voted for.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well said Alexander T. What on earth is the motivation of GP Commissioners who are slowly killing off their own profession and a GP service very dear to the great British Public?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well, all GP commissioners' main income is now from organisations they have created to run all this services, isn't it?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes well - one contract in this category was let just before Christmas.This was in the form of a small framework (6 providers selected and the work split between them over a 4 year period - this is a well established system in use by Local Authorities and to be expected for LES) 82 tenders were submitted. Of the six admitted into the framework - 2 international companies, 3 national companies, 1 charity. None of the practices which tendered got through. This was because they did not know what is required or how to tender. The secret is preparation. We have helped some practice managers to get started. There is only one answer, if you want the work (and the income) find out what is required and start preparing now!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Do we really stay in the NHS ? Should we not resign and take our chances as dentists did. We cannot have fish and flesh and vegans all in the same concoction. Either we go private totally or not> this mishmash is terrible.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Janet Roberts - Most doctors are in fact doctors busy treating not inter/national businesses with the time, energy or staff to tender 'properly'. Such activity has the potential to make some practices financially unviable...hope its not your GP Janet.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Bringing services closer to patient was the slogan . when it comes to aqp they can go 10 miles away from practice.this will save them money. patient satisfaction and ease of access have become irrelevant government
    POORER GP/poor patient will be inconvenienced. boots virgin and bupa may become richer..

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been removed by the moderator.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say