Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
NHS FINANCE “BUILDING BLOCKS” Bob Dredge Director of Finance Birmingham Children’s Hospital NHS Trust FUNDING THE NHS FUTURE PROSPECTS CURRENT ISSUES FUNDING PRINCIPALS Since 1976 – equity Access based on need Need measured in £ Allocate £ based on need SINCE 1976 Slow progress Different measurement Different definition of need FHS excluded until 1998 GMS excluded until 2002 BASICS OF ALLOCATION Weighted Capitation Target What PCT (DHA) should have Recurrent Baseline What it has Distance from Target Target less baseline Pace of Change How quickly target met WEIGHTING FACTORS Age structure (cost weights) AGE/COST/CURVE 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 All Births Age 515 Age 45-64 Age 75-84 DEMOGRAPHIC IMPACT 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 83 /8 86 4 /8 89 7 /9 92 0 /9 95 3 /9 98 6 20 /9 01 9 20 /0 04 2 /0 5 0.00 Whole population Male Female WEIGHTING FACTORS Age structure Needs Long Standing Illness Morbidity (SMR) Unemployment rate 65+ living alone GMS - age related access - Jarmen Index Market Forces 117 pay zones Averaging between neighbours PCT TARGET PCT Weighted Population x £ available England Weighted Population FUNDED BY 98% Public Funds 2% changes Constant % for 10 years HOW MUCH (2002/03) £M Current expenditure Capital charges Allocated to DHAs Central Funds/Initiatives 46,168 1,697 47,865 41,468 6,397 47,865 WITHIN ALLOCATIONS Mental Health IM & T Capacity Building Primary Care Access Central Shared Services £M 230 76 60 75 56 425 84 26 StBO 100 Performance fund Cancer CHD 2002/03 HEADLINES Average cash increase 9.88% Range of increase 9.31% - 11.68% Assumed GDP – 2.6% Real inflation around 6% Minimum cash increase to PCTs – 5.6% 2002/03 HEADLINES Some earmarked developments Real CIP risks – 0.2% - 6.3% in BBC £40m needed Duty to break even Health economy issue FUTURE PROSPECTS Wanless Government response Is NHS failing? WANLESS It should be noted that in all other countries examined, there are relatively high levels of dissatisfaction with health service… whatever the (spend). TORs Estimate resources needed in 20 years time Not how financed …but publicly funded, comprehensive and high quality FUNDING MECHANISMS Taxation – direct and indirect Social Insurance - earnings related - employer tax Out-of-Pocket - public and private Private Insurance PRINCIPLES Efficiency Equity - Choice - lowest cost minimum disruption to economy access based on clinical need (NICE) contributions related to ability to pay meeting expectation PUBLIC OR PRIVATE OECD suggest greater share of public spending associated with better health outcomes OUT OF POCKET UK - limited to primary care - progressive – many exceptions France/Sweden – all pay same USA – 55% private TAXATION Efficient to finance/collect Cost containment Forces prioritisation (nationally) Vulnerable to economic cycle ? Ensures universal access not based on ability to pay (risk too large) Progressive in economic terms Limited personal choice SOCIAL INSURANCE Payroll tax managed by Fund No incentive to contain costs Relatively high admin costs Germany/France revisions Narrow payer base Vulnerable to economic cycle Little individual choice OUT OF POCKET All or part payment Limit work/maximise choice Selection mitigates prevention! High cost to run Regressive Increase inequalities (Sweden) PRIVATE INSURANCE Very variable between countries Poor cost control Fragmented commissioning High admin costs Individual risk rating – not universal even based on affordability Freedom of choice CONCLUSION Taxation best cost control prioritisation Separation of paying and costing Public spend best OOP bad! So stay as we are! “fair and efficient” GOVERNMENT RESPONSE March 2002 Budget Milburn speech – May Throw money at problem Increase tax FUTURE FUNDING 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 * Inflation at 2.5% Cash % 10.2 9.9 9.9 9.9 10.1 Real * 7.9 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.8 20 20 20 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 06 / 04 / 02 / 00 / 98 / 96 / 94 / 92 / 89 / 87 / 85 / 83 / 81 / 07 05 03 01 99 97 95 93 90 88 86 84 82 A BIG CHANGE? 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 BUT – CAPITAL! Revenue Capital 2003/04 6.6 24 2004/05 6.9 17 2005/06 6.7 26 2006/07 6.8 15 2007/08 7.0 16 PAYMENT BY RESULTS Elective activity beyond base in 2003/04 - cost per case - HRG Reference Cost - Non Recurrent? Medium Term – all activity Social service penalty for delayed discharge USE OF PRIVATE SECTOR Surgical Teams Expect Work Whole Service (Kaiser) Model? LIFT WILL IT WORK 114 112 110 108 106 104 102 100 98 96 94 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 Line 1 HEALTH GAINS Spend increase Health Education Law & Order Transport Environment Housing 1997- 2002 +37% +36% +36% nil +28% +38% FINANCIAL DUTIES Break-Even each year Capital Cash (6%) absorption Manage EFL Meet Resource Limit Public Sector Payment