In the history of integration initiatives, the BCF will get decidedly mixed reviews. Originally called the Integration Transformation Fund, it arose from the 2013 spending review and was hailed as the coalition government’s flagship integration policy; ‘a single pooled budget for health and social care services to work more closely together in local areas, based on a plan agreed between the NHS and local authorities.’ While everyone agreed – and still does – that sharing resources across the NHS and local government is a good thing, expectations of what the Fund could achieve, and how quickly, were heroic. The initial £3.8 billion fund was not new money; instead it was drawn largely from clinical commissioning group (CCG) allocations. The national conditions for its use were stringent and plans had to be assembled very quickly. Later the rules were tightened to prioritise delayed transfers and emergency hospital admissions, inevitably fuelling tensions between local government and NHS England about how the money should be used and concerns that the oversight and sign-off processes were too burdensome and over-prescriptive.
So it was unsurprising that last year’s assessment by the National Audit Office concluded that the BCF had not achieved planned savings or reductions in delayed transfers and emergency admissions. More positively, however, it found that the BCF had been successful in incentivising local areas to work together; more than 90 per cent of local areas agreed or strongly agreed that delivery of their plan had improved joint working.
The BCF has grown to £5.1 billion this year; the bulk of it (£3.6 billion) remains NHS money ring-fenced from CCG allocations, with another £1.5 billion paid direct to councils as a result of the 2017 budget increase for adult social care and £468 million for disabled facilities grant, also paid direct to councils. Some places have chosen to pool additional resources, bringing the total up to just under £6 billion.
These numbers are small in the overall scheme of things but contain some highly important provisions; for example, the NHS contribution includes funding for the Care Act, carers’ breaks and reablement. And given the perilous state of local council finances, it is no wonder there is nervousness about the outcome of the review. With councils grappling with setting their budgets for next year, at the very least local government will be seeking assurance that the NHS will maintain its share of the BCF, noting that the 3.4 per cent annual increase for the NHS appears to include this minimum contribution.
So the current review of the BCF is timely and important. It is encouraging that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is jointly leading the review with Department of Health and Social Care. The review is likely to focus on the future amount of pooled money, the national conditions and metrics, governance, planning and oversight requirements. It is worth noting that although a 3.4 per cent annual increase is munificent by local government standards it will not transport the NHS into a land of milk and honey. So NHS England will continue to seek maximum leverage on how its share of the BCF will get spent and to what effect.
But the review also offers a great opportunity to move beyond the organisational politics of public spending. With the numbers of people needing integrated care set to soar, the time for timidity is over – a bolder and far more ambitious framework is surely needed. Though the BCF itself will never resolve the fundamental differences between the NHS and social care in terms of entitlement and eligibility, everyone agrees that place-based planning is the best way of making sure that resources are used to get the best outcomes for individuals and populations. Our work on emerging integrated care systems identifies a focus on the ‘public pound’ rather than separate budget silos as one success factor.
The review could consider ways of fundamentally recasting the BCF so that instead of being seen as a distracting top-down initiative affecting less than 5 per cent of total NHS and social care spending, it becomes a much more powerful catalyst for change, involving a far bigger pooling of NHS and social care budgets. It could, for example, form the basis of a proper transformation fund to shift care away from hospitals and long-term care towards care and prevention in people’s own homes and communities. The NHS minimum contribution, along with local authority social care budgets, could be gradually raised over time so that a much bigger proportion of local spending is jointly agreed, eventually achieving a single, local ring-fenced budget for health and social care with a single commissioner, as recommended by the Barker Commission.
When I first wrote about the Better Care Fund five years ago I quoted Roger Water’s lyrics about money, in the track of the same name from Pink Floyd’s classic album 'Dark Side of the Moon' in the 1970s: ’share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie'. The outcome of the BCF review will tell us how much has changed.
It is unclear how the Better Care Fund 'for the purpose of integration' if 'pooled' budget are not in place, can 'deliver' what's in effect an 'integrated' system of Health & Social Care. Evidence to date confirms 'vulnerable' mentally Ill are being discharged from 'Statutory Care Plans' on the basis they have not returned to HOSPITAL, denied a Personal Budget, and Independent Advocates as per the Legislation, and remain under Section 117 FREE Aftercare. This practice is denying the most vulnerable' access to to their LEGAL entitlements. The most 'vulnerable' Mentally Ill are receiving 'enhanced care of PIP, in order to be awarded this, it has to be demonstrated you require help and supervision on a daily basis? the 'irony' is many LA are responsible and complete these forms on their behalf, provide nothing, 'discharge from 'Care Plans' as stable?? 'Statutory Care Plans including 'eligibility' ignored.
If LAs are applying the above strategy to reduce their SPENDING, they have no 'CASE' to REQUEST additional funding due to their Duty to apply the LAW, if they have just decided many of the MI have become 'invisible'.
The system has to be 'transparent' 'honest' and abide by their DUTY to apply the LAW.
The facts are this: Patients and Carers (who Care) are denied legal entitlement, discharged from 'Care Plans' yet legally entitled.
There is little to comment on rather than the obvious: 'Integration' requires 'pooled budgets' an 'integrated' system that 'speaks' to each other: the 'Patient' and those known to be involved in their Health & Social Care should all be involved. Patients/Carers should ALL hold the same 'conversation' records.
I appreciate there is much more to the conversation, but this is the 'state of play' at the moment.
The CQC should become more actively involved, their 'methodology' of GP Inspections is not 'fit for purpose' particularly when those entitled to a 'Statutory Care Plan' and 'eligibility' are written out of the system, but remain under Section 117.
The Allocation of a 'pooled' budget should be based on NEED, with an Independent COMMISSIONER at the 'helm'.
At the outset of the BCF some time ago now I was optimistic that the circa £5b identified to promote a shift in thinking about the huge inequity affecting health & social care would see real change in how we made integration real. Alas this has not happened I still see lots of senior management time & spend devoted to reporting on metrics that have up to recently included keeping frail vulnerable people ( many with advancing dementia ) being ‘kept out of care homes’ relying on inadequate so called care packages but mostly the love,dedication and all too commonly highly anxious & stressed spouses & family members ( eg the sandwich generation as they are often described) waiting for a common pattern of a preventable hospital admission ( such as a catastrophic fall) where people become subject to the slow complex system that is generally bad for any long term recovery - being in hospital. We know the detail of delayed transfers of care, muscle wastage per day, weight loss, decompensation adter the impact of a stepped decline in capability and break in a familiar pattern of daily living etc...not forgetting that reports of up to 40% of those occupying a hospital bed are medically stable waiting fir discharge
There remains a strong emphasis on keeping people at home beyond the point where good 24/7 care would transform lives for the good. We see families colossal relief when mum, dad,brother,sister,husband,wife arrive in one of my homes. We equally see lives transformed from struggling lonely unstimulated sad existences to those of balanced companiable entertained lives that have heaps of laughter & support to live out lives with dignity, kindness & indivualised needs met. Homely homes for life we say.
The BCF for me has not delivered on the core principle of enabling people to feel secure that ‘when the time is right’ - they can look fwd to good 24/7 care safe in the knowledge they won’t be denied this for reasons of flawed policies & system blind spots. I will continue to advocate for a better joined up integrated system based on common values between services such as trust & mutuality of knowing that we must put aside the ‘yes but’ in preference to ‘can do’ and unite in a ‘we’re in it together’ over ‘what’s in it for me’ way. I’m at a local provider engagement network reference group later today where I will be making positive noise about true partnership working between the NHS & social care The BCF will be discussed I’m sure. I’ll be recommending others read and respond to the KF work So let’s hope fine words lead most critically to fine action. Thx as ever Richard