NHS England’s 2014 Five Year Forward
View (5YFV) and the subsequent Next Steps on the NHS Five Year Forward first
introduced the concept of Accountable care organisation (ACOs) and Integrated
care systems (ICSs) as an approach to integrate primary and acute medical care
in the NHS.
They were cited as a
similar model to the Primary and Acute Care Systems (PACS) and Multispeciality
community providers (MCPs). Both of these models, MCPs and PACS were
precursors to the development of ACOs/ICSs in the NHS. In PACS, hospitals often
take the lead in joining up acute services with GP, community, mental health
and social care services. The emphasis in MCPs is on GPs working at scale to
forge closer links with community, mental health and social care services. Following
the publication of 5YFV, NHS England established nine PACS and 14 MCP
‘vanguards’ to trial the models, covering around eight per cent of the
population of England.
What are ACOs?
The term Accountable
Care Organisations (ACOs) refers to an area-based model of healthcare
provision, where a single body takes responsibility for the health needs of its
entire population. Although there is no fixed definition of ACOs, most usually
include the following elements:
• They involve a
provider or, more usually, an alliance of providers that collaborate to meet
the needs of a defined population.
• These providers
take responsibility for a budget allocated by a commissioner or alliance of
commissioners to deliver a range of services to that population.
• ACOs work under a
contract that specifies the outcomes and other objectives they are required to
achieve within the given budget, often extending over a number of years.
The intention of ACOs
is to operate in a more integrated manner than healthcare models that pay per
procedure carried out, as well as a greater focus on prevention and health
promotion.
What are ICSs?
ICSs would see CCGs
and providers (such as NHS trusts, GPs and community healthcare providers)
within a Sustainability and Transformation Partnership (STP) area working
together to manage funding for their defined population.
The major difference
between ACSs and ICSs is that with ACOs “there will be a single contract with a
single organisation for the majority of health and care services in the area.”
ICSs also involve CCGs as commissioners, getting them to work more closely
together with providers such as NHS trusts and GPS, to plan care for their
populations. ACOs however only integrate providers, with no formal role for
CCGs.
What are the main forms of integrated care?
There are three main
forms of integrated care:
• Integrated care systems (ICSs) have
evolved from STPs and take the lead in planning and commissioning care for
their populations and providing system leadership. They bring together NHS
providers and commissioners and local authorities to work in partnership in
improving health and care in their area.
• Integrated care partnerships (ICPs)
are alliances of NHS providers that work together to deliver care by agreeing
to collaborate rather than compete. These providers include hospitals,
community services, mental health services and GPs. Social care and independent
and third sector providers may also be involved.
• Accountable care organisations
(ACOs) are established when commissioners award a long-term contract to a
single organisation to provide a range of health and care services to a defined
population following a competitive procurement. This organisation may
subcontract with other providers to deliver the contract.
ICPs are at various
stages of development across England and ICSs have been established in ten
areas, two of which – Greater Manchester and Surrey Heartlands – are part of
the government’s devolution programme.
Why are these controversial?
The language of
accountable care originated in the United States at the time of President
Obama’s health care reforms, and its use in the NHS has raised concerns that it
could result in health and care services coming under the control of private
companies. However, if ACOs are established in the NHS, they will be a means of
delivering care and not funding it. The principles of a universal and
comprehensive NHS funded through taxation and available on the basis of need
and not ability to pay will not be affected.
The proposed ACO
contract could result in more NHS services being managed by private companies
but this seems unlikely to happen in many cases because:
The experience of
Hinchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridgeshire, where the private company, Circle,
had to hand back its contract to provide NHS services because of insufficient
funding suggests that there are limited opportunities to generate profits from
NHS contracts. This is not surprising when deficits are endemic among NHS
organisations following several years of austerity. It is hard to envisage how
private companies would perform better financially than NHS organisations when
they would be taking responsibility for the services provided by these
organisations if they competed successfully for an ACO contract.
Rather than opening
up the NHS to increased privatisation and competition, as some have claimed,
these developments are likely to have the opposite effect. The vestiges of
market-based reforms remain, but they have taken a back seat as the need for
NHS commissioners and providers to work together to make decisions on the use
of resources has been given higher priority. The risk this creates is the
possibility of legal challenges from private companies who feel that
commissioners are not using competitive procurement as required under the law
and instead are keeping contracts within ‘the NHS family’.
Why is the change needed?
NHS is under severe
pressure due to rising demand and funding constraint. It has been clear for
some time that simply working our current hospital-based model of care harder
to meet rising demand is not the answer. Rather, the NHS needs to work
differently by providing more care in people’s homes and the community and
breaking down barriers between services. The NHS also needs to give greater
priority to the prevention of ill health by working with local authorities and
other agencies to tackle the wider determinants of health and wellbeing.
This aim is being
pursued through the new care models, STPs and the evolution of some STPs into integrated
care systems. These developments hold out the promise of a different way of
working in the NHS with an emphasis on places, populations and systems.
Successful integrated care systems will take more control of funding and
performance with less involvement by national bodies and regulators.
Will these changes lead to cuts in NHS budget?
While financial
issues are very important, it would be wrong to see these developments as a
means of the NHS balancing its books. Recognising that the NHS is required by
parliament to keep within its spending limit, and that this is proving
difficult, these developments are primarily about improving health and care,
and in so doing seeking opportunities to deliver its financial objectives.
Integrated care and population health should not be expected to save money but
have the potential to enable resources to be used more effectively.
This is an attempt to
give local leaders more control over the use of the collective resources at
their disposal, thereby enabling them to back the ambitions set out in STPs
with flexibility to move money around.
What has this way of working achieved?
Early evidence from
the new care models suggests some progress is being made in moderating rising
demand for hospital care.
Data collected by NHS
England, for example, shows that PACS and MCPs in aggregate have seen lower
growth in per capita emergency admissions to hospitals than the rest of
England. Some new care models have reported absolute reductions in emergency
admissions per capita.
What do these developments mean for commissioning?
One of the
consequences of these developments is that the commissioner/provider split that
has underpinned health policy since the early 1990s is unravelling. Providers
and commissioners are working together to establish ICPs and ICSs. Clinical
commissioning groups (CCGs) are either merging or agreeing to collaborate and
are working closely with local authorities in many areas to develop joint or
integrated commissioning.
Commissioning in the
future is likely to make use of longer term, outcome-based contracts. The
current system of Payment by Results, which was designed for an environment in
which choice and competition predominated, will then be superseded, in many
cases, by population-based budgets. Commissioning will become more strategic
and concerned with the funding and planning of new models of integrated care
rather than the annual contract round that has added little value to the NHS in
recent years. Commissioners will have a key role in holding providers to
account for delivering outcomes agreed in contracts.
What next?
The NHS long term
plan released in Jan 2019 commits that By April 2021 ICSs will cover the whole
country, growing out of the current network of Sustainability and
Transformation Partnerships (STPs). ICSs will have a key role in working with
Local Authorities at ‘place’ level and through ICSs, commissioners will make
shared decisions with providers on how to use resources, design services and
improve population health (other than for a limited number of decisions that
commissioners will need to continue to make independently, for example in
relation to procurement and contract award). Every ICS will need streamlined
commissioning arrangements to enable a single set of commissioning decisions at
system level. This will typically involve a single CCG for each ICS area. CCGs
will become leaner, more strategic organisations that support providers to
partner with local government and other community organisations on population
health, service redesign and Long Term Plan implementation.
Ref
- https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/making-sense-integrated-care-systems#cuts
- https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8190/CBP-8190.pdf