Select committee inquiry

Impact of the Spending Review on health and social care

Closed

Health and Social Care Committee · Opened 10 December 2015 · Closed 30 December 2016

7 recommendations · 23 conclusions
Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

What the inquiry looked at

“The scale of the funding challenge in health is colossal and whilst spending on health is increasing, the service is under unprecedented strain and struggling to keep pace with relentlessly rising demand, says the Health Committee in its report on Impact of the Spending Review on health and social care.”

The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.

What it found

In the committee's words, from the summary of 1st Report - Impact of the Spending Review on health and social care ↗

We welcome the Five Year Forward View, which sets out the funding challenge facing the NHS over the next five years and, for the first time, a vision for the service to equip it to meet patients’ needs. Last year’s Spending Review aimed to provide the funds to make the Forward View a reality.

The scale of the funding challenge is colossal, especially given the timescale for achieving it. While the NHS has been treated favourably in comparison with other departments, the funding allocated for the NHS in the Spending Review is less than would appear to be the case from official pronouncements. We call on the Government to be clearer in the presentation of its funding commitments. We are concerned that that the shift in resources, especially from public health, health education, transformation and capital budgets, will make it far more difficult to achieve the ambitions set out in the Forward View. In our view, the funding announced in the Spending Review does not meet the Government’s commitment to fund the Five Year Forward View.

There are also new challenges, most notably the rising deficits in NHS providers. The proposed strategies for reducing their costs—cutting the tariffs paid to hospitals, strict pay restraint, imposing agency price caps and reducing capital spending—are not sustainable ways of securing efficiencies in the long term.

The funding designed to pump prime the transformation of services to create better and more efficient services in the future, the Sustainability and Transformation Fund, is being used almost entirely to plug provider deficits, rather than to transform the health and social care system at scale and pace. The transfers from capital to revenue budgets are storing up future costs as well as reducing the funding available for essential transformation of services. We call for the Transformation element of the Fund to be protected to allow the ambitions of the Five Year Forward View to be realised.

The ongoing work to integrate health and social care services, in ways that better meet the needs of patients, shows great promise. But integration and devolution to local areas do not offer quick solutions to the financial problems facing the NHS and social care services. The Transformation fund is essential to get these promising plans off the ground, and we shall be monitoring how it is spent.

Historical cuts to social care funding have now exhausted the capacity for significant further efficiencies in this area. Increasing numbers of people with genuine social care needs are no longer receiving the care they need because of a lack of resource. This not only causes considerable distress to these individuals and their families but results in additional costs to the NHS. We will be monitoring the extent to which the Better Care Fund and Social Care Precept are successful in raising revenue and how this is distributed to reflect need and health inequality. We also note with concern that this funding will not arrive until later in the Spending Review period.

Workforce supply must be improved if we are to meet the future health and social care needs of the population. Most immediately, the Government should review the likely impact of the proposed abolition of NHS bursaries on the supply of nursing staff and other allied health professionals.

What the government said

The government responded on 16 December 2016.

How the inquiry ran

Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 10 December 2015 to its close on 30 December 2016. Written evidence is not charted: only the latest 50 submissions are listed here.

  1. Oral evidence 4 sessions
  2. Report 19 Jul 2016
  3. Government response 16 Dec 2016

What it recommended 7 recommendations · 23 conclusions

1The financial situation in the NHS has become increasingly tight.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The financial situation in the NHS has become increasingly tight. Health spending rose at a historically low rate of 1.1% in real terms between 2009–10 and 2015–16. NHS provider deficits have become so widespread that there is a risk that running a deficit is no longer taken seriously as a sign of poor financial management. The need to manage deficits also risks skewing attention and draining resources from other NHS priorities.
2We have heard compelling evidence that the current payment system does not drive greater efficiency...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We have heard compelling evidence that the current payment system does not drive greater efficiency or support the transformation that is required across the system. The payment system needs to be reformed, so that it does not continue the perverse incentives which can drive inappropriate hospital admissions. It must however ensure that hospitals are paid a fair price, and that the system encourages them to manage their costs appropriately, with care being carried out in the right settings. Whilst we recognise that reforms of this scale cannot be rushed, we note that we and our predecessor Health Committees have been hearing concerns about the payment system for many years. We therefore recommend that NHS England and NHS Improvement set out a clear timetable for reforms to the payment system, and clarify the underlying problems that the changes will address.
3There is no doubt that spending on agency staff on the scale seen since 2009–10...
Concluded (the committee's words)
There is no doubt that spending on agency staff on the scale seen since 2009–10 has been a major contributor to provider deficits. The cap on agency costs and rates has helped to turn the corner, but this may be undermined by the widening gap between NHS pay and that for comparable jobs outside the NHS. Over the previous Parliament, much of the efficiency gain was achieved thanks to a pay freeze, but a long-term pay squeeze has unintended consequences for recruitment and retention, which may drive higher costs. The problems with agency spending are likely to remain until the underlying issues of workforce supply and staff shortages are addressed. We therefore call on the Government to set out its plan for how it will recruit and retain the NHS future workforce, including by making working as a permanent member of staff a more attractive option.
4We are concerned that the Government has resorted to short-term measures to deal with the...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We are concerned that the Government has resorted to short-term measures to deal with the financial situation. Capital was transferred to revenue for the second year running in 2015–16 and trusts were encouraged to review their accounting estimates for savings. We are concerned that these measures are masking the true scale of the underlying financial problems facing the NHS. We are also concerned about the consequences of repeated raids on the capital budget to meet current spending, especially as that budget is already set to reduce in real terms over the spending review period.
5The conclusion we draw from the evidence we have heard is that the proposed strategies...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The conclusion we draw from the evidence we have heard is that the proposed strategies for reducing costs—cutting the tariff price (albeit at a lower rate), strict pay restraint, imposing agency price caps and reducing capital spending—are not sustainable ways of securing long-term efficiencies. The NHS will need a new approach if it is to adapt to increasing patient demand and funding constraints.
6We are concerned about the effect of reduced access to adult social care as a...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We are concerned about the effect of reduced access to adult social care as a result of the cuts to funding and the impact of this on the NHS. Given the evidence of the linkages between health and social care, we were concerned that none of the senior officials giving evidence from the Department of Health, NHS England or NHS Improvement were able to quantify the financial cost of one of the most visible interfaces between health and social care, namely delayed transfers of care as a result of not having adequate social care packages in place. The supplementary evidence sent to us by the Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement following the session was able only to refer us to estimates from a recent National Audit Office report.
7We recommend that the Government urgently assess and set out publicly the additional costs to...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We recommend that the Government urgently assess and set out publicly the additional costs to the NHS as a result of delayed transfers of care, and the wider costs to the NHS associated with pressures on adult social care budgets more generally. That assessment should be accompanied by a plan for adult social care which demonstrates that the Government is addressing the situation in social care and dealing with its effect on health services.
8Health spending will not increase by as much as expected from official pronouncements.
Recommended (the committee's words)
Health spending will not increase by as much as expected from official pronouncements. In previous years, spending reviews have defined health spending as the entirety of the Department of Health’s budget, but the 2015 spending review defines spending in terms of NHS England’s budget, which excludes, for example, spending on public health, education and training. Excluding these aspects of spending—which are being cut over the spending review period—is misleading, as these organisations play a vital role in providing front line services to patients, reducing demand through prevention and in training the future workforce. We call on the Government to set out the rationale for changing the definition of health spending. Until there is a clear case for the change, we will continue to use the previous definition of health spending, and we call on the Government to do likewise.
9Using the original definitions, and taking 2015–16 as the base year, total health spending will...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Using the original definitions, and taking 2015–16 as the base year, total health spending will increase by £4.5 billion in real terms by 2021. This is a welcome increase, particularly in the context of the financial constraints faced by other Government departments, but is clearly far less than the £8.4 billion implied by the Spending Review announcements and does not in our view meet the commitment to fund the Five Year Forward View.
10We welcome the Five Year Forward View, which provides NHS England’s assessment of the challenge...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We welcome the Five Year Forward View, which provides NHS England’s assessment of the challenge and proposes a way forward for the NHS to be able to meet the widening funding gap.
11NHS England published further details of where the £22 billion of savings will come from...
Concluded (the committee's words)
NHS England published further details of where the £22 billion of savings will come from on the day of our final oral evidence session, but we consider that it falls short on detail. It is still not sufficiently clear how or when the stated efficiencies will be achieved, or the contribution that individual organisations and sectors are expected to make.
12The Department and NHS England now need to set out a detailed plan for realising...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Department and NHS England now need to set out a detailed plan for realising the savings and demand reductions that are needed to realise the aspirations of the Five Year Forward View, so that bodies understand the contribution they need to make. The plan needs to be seen to be realistic, show the profile of savings and include metrics and milestones for monitoring progress against a trajectory. We will return to this subject on a regular basis through the spending review period to monitor progress against achieving the plan.
13We are encouraged by the progress that has been made to build on good practice...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We are encouraged by the progress that has been made to build on good practice in the NHS, including through the work of Lord Carter and Professor Briggs. We heard mixed views on whether addressing unwarranted variation can realise sufficient efficiency savings but we are hopeful about what might be achieved with the engagement of providers and clinicians. The NHS must now set out how it will tackle variation within community, mental health, ambulance, primary care and specialist acute services. We recommend that the NHS publish details of the profile of saving targets within each sector so that we can assess progress when we next return to this subject.
14Cuts to social care funding over a number of years have now exhausted the capacity...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Cuts to social care funding over a number of years have now exhausted the capacity for significant further efficiencies in this area. We have heard that the savings made by local councils in the last parliament have gone beyond efficiency savings and have already impacted on the provision of services. Based on the evidence we have heard we are concerned that people with genuine social care needs may no longer be receiving the care they need because of a lack of resource. This not only causes considerable distress to the individuals concerned but results in significant additional costs to the NHS.
15Cuts to public health budgets threaten to undermine key parts of the vision set out...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Cuts to public health budgets threaten to undermine key parts of the vision set out in the Five Year Forward View, which are predicated on, among other things, a “radical upgrade in prevention and public health”. Failing to promote prevention Impact of the Spending Review on health and social care 59 with sufficient vigour will mean increasing operational and financial pressure on the NHS. The overwhelming view amongst our witnesses is that the public health cuts will turn out to have been a false economy.
16Given that even greater responsibility for public health has been transferred to local authorities, monitoring...
Recommended (the committee's words)
Given that even greater responsibility for public health has been transferred to local authorities, monitoring what is spent, how it is spent, and what it has achieved is of great importance. The Government needs to analyse and closely monitor the effects of the public health cuts on the aspirations set out in the Five Year Forward View. The Government should set out clearly, with measurable objectives and milestones, what it expects public health spending to achieve over the next five years, in terms of improved health and savings in NHS expenditure. We will return to this issue in future consideration of the financial situation in health and social care.
17By the time this report is published, a new Prime Minister will have taken office.
Recommended (the committee's words)
By the time this report is published, a new Prime Minister will have taken office. We are concerned about the future of the childhood obesity strategy. We call on the Government under Theresa May as Prime Minister to publish and implement the strategy at the earliest possible opportunity, and on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to implement the existing plans for a levy on the manufacturers of sugary soft drinks.
18We expect the Government to clarify the situation for CCGs wanting to adopt integrated commissioning...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We expect the Government to clarify the situation for CCGs wanting to adopt integrated commissioning with local authorities including through “most capable provider” approaches. During the passage of the Health and Social Care Act, the then Secretary of State assured our predecessor committee that integration would trump competition where that was in the best interests of patients. All those working towards the goal of providing an integrated service need clarity about the legal avenues open to them in order to do so.
19We heard some impressive evidence of the work going on to integrate health and social...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We heard some impressive evidence of the work going on to integrate health and social care services, and to incorporate other public services in ways that meet the needs of patients better and improve the local population’s health. These initiatives for integration have great potential. In many areas, patients are already benefitting from better integration and other transformation initiatives. This will however not necessarily save money in the short term, as this approach also identifies more individuals who could benefit from services.
20Integration and devolution do not offer a quick solution to the financial problems facing the...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Integration and devolution do not offer a quick solution to the financial problems facing the NHS and social care services. Such projects require substantial investment in preparation and during the early years of operation, and may in some cases add to costs in order to deliver long term savings. The Government needs to take a long term view in assessing their financial benefits and should define how the success of the vanguards will be evaluated.
21With much of the upfront investment in the Spending Review being used to plug deficits,...
Recommended (the committee's words)
With much of the upfront investment in the Spending Review being used to plug deficits, there is a real danger that greater integration and the move to the new models of care set out in the Five Year Forward View will be jeopardised by the shortage of transformation funds across the wider NHS outside the vanguards. At present 60 Impact of the Spending Review on health and social care the Sustainability and Transformation Fund is being used largely to ‘sustain’ in the form of plugging provider deficits rather than in transforming the system at scale and pace. If the financial situation of trusts is not resolved or, worse, deteriorates further, it is likely that the overwhelming majority of the Fund will continue to be used to correct short-term problems rather than to support long-term solutions. We call on the Government to set out how it will protect the Transformation element of the Fund to ensure that the ambitions of the Five Year Forward View are realised.
22The failure to train and retain an adequate supply of clinical staff is causing great...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The failure to train and retain an adequate supply of clinical staff is causing great strain in many parts of the NHS. This is undermining patient care, driving up the use of more expensive agency staff to fill rota gaps and diverting resources away from other important priorities. We expect Health Education England to set out their strategic plan and state whether they expect it to be achievable, and whether it will deliver the staff needs of the NHS, within their current budget. As we return to this subject through the spending review period we intend to examine the progress which HEE is making in improving workforce planning and effecting the transformation of the workforce at the heart of achieving the aims of the aims of the Five Year Forward View.
23We have heard concerns about the potential impact of the proposed abolition of NHS bursaries...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We have heard concerns about the potential impact of the proposed abolition of NHS bursaries on the supply of nursing staff and other allied health professionals. We recommend that the Government review the impact on those training as a second degree and examine a transitional approach to support this section of the future workforce. We welcome the introduction of new routes to Associate Nurse and degree level nursing for those working as Health Care Assistants. We plan to return to this issue.
24The Government and NHS England have now produced a clearer account of their intentions for...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Government and NHS England have now produced a clearer account of their intentions for seven-day services in hospitals and GP surgeries. We welcome the more realistic vision for seven-day hospital services, focussing on urgent and emergency care. We will continue to monitor progress on seven-day services across the Spending Review period, with the aim of assessing whether the Government’s ambitions are achievable and delivering value for patients given the constraints on available resources and the risk of displacing measures which would be more cost effective.
25Delivery of the funding commitments the Government has made for mental health is crucial to...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Delivery of the funding commitments the Government has made for mental health is crucial to the delivery of meaningful parity of esteem. As we return to this subject through the Spending Review period, we will be looking for clear, verifiable evidence that the additional funding for mental health is being delivered to the front line, as Impact of the Spending Review on health and social care 61 well as evidence of sustainable progress towards the culture change across the NHS, from commissioners to providers, necessary to deliver genuine parity of esteem.
26New models of care and the measures to achieve demand reduction which are crucial to...
Concluded (the committee's words)
New models of care and the measures to achieve demand reduction which are crucial to the achievement of the Five Year vision are not being embedded across the whole system. These changes are not happening at sufficient scale and pace across the wider NHS and social care. The integration of health and social care—not just the integration of funding, as in the Better Care Fund, but getting commissioners and service providers in each sector to work more closely together to deliver a service to their local population—is not proceeding at the required pace. Furthermore, there is a risk that cuts to funding outside NHS England, such as public health and social care, will put the achievement of the Five Year vision at risk.
27The Forward View needs to be accompanied by strategic thinking from Ministers about what priorities...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Forward View needs to be accompanied by strategic thinking from Ministers about what priorities will best support achievement of the vision when resources are constrained. They should be prepared to set out the evidence as it develops on the value delivered by seven-day services and how that compares with other priorities such as action on prevention and public health.
28Given the scale of rising demand and costs we are not confident that the efficiency...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Given the scale of rising demand and costs we are not confident that the efficiency challenge is achievable. We are concerned about the failure to plan for the consequences if the current plan for savings is not achieved.
29We believe it is time for the Government and NHS England to set out how...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We believe it is time for the Government and NHS England to set out how they will manage the shortfall in NHS and social care finances and the decline in services to patients if the measures proposed in the Forward View fail to bridge the funding gap. If the funding is not increased, there needs to be an honest debate about what that will mean for patient care.
30We expect to return to the subject of the impact of the Government’s spending decisions...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We expect to return to the subject of the impact of the Government’s spending decisions on health and social care on a regular basis and hold Ministers, NHS England and NHS Improvement regularly to account over the course of the Spending Review period.

Evidence

Oral evidence sessions 4

Written evidence 108 submissions

Listed here by submitter; the evidence itself is on Parliament's website. Showing the latest 50 of 108 recorded submissions. Browse the inquiry on Parliament.

  • 20 Jul 2016Sir David DaltonCSR0111Full text not held
  • 5 Jul 2016Voyage CareCSR0100Full text not held
  • 5 Jul 2016Department for Communities and Local GovernmentCSR0109Full text not held
  • 15 Jun 2016Department of Health, NHS England and NHS ImprovementCSR0108Full text not held
  • 9 Jun 2016NHS EnglandCSR0107Full text not held
  • 9 May 2016Somerset CCGCSR0106Full text not held
  • 9 May 2016NHS ImprovementCSR0105Full text not held
  • 9 May 2016The British Psychological SocietyCSR0102Full text not held
  • 9 May 2016Department of HealthCSR0103Full text not held
  • 9 May 2016Health Education EnglandCSR0104Full text not held
  • 20 Apr 2016Local Government AssociationCSR0101Full text not held
  • 12 Apr 2016Regional Asylum Activism ProjectCSR0098Full text not held
  • 12 Apr 2016Terrence Higgins TrustCSR0099Full text not held
  • 7 Apr 2016Institute of Physics and Engineering in MedicineCSR0018Full text not held
  • 9 Mar 2016NHS ProvidersCSR0095Full text not held
  • 9 Mar 2016Royal College of General PractitionersCSR0096Full text not held
  • 9 Mar 2016The Health FoundationCSR0097Full text not held
  • 24 Feb 2016Nuffield Trust (supplementary submission)CSR0092Full text not held
  • 24 Feb 2016Shelford GroupCSR0093Full text not held
  • 24 Feb 2016Professor Andrew StreetCSR0094Full text not held
  • 4 Feb 2016Care & Support Alliance (CSA)CSR0040Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016Joint submission: Nuffield Trust, The Health Foundation, The King's FundCSR0091Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016The King's FundCSR0090Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016County Councils NetworkCSR0089Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016Action on Smoking and HealthCSR0088Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016techUKCSR0087Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016ADASSCSR0086Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016Age UKCSR0085Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016The Health FoundationCSR0084Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016Royal Society for Public HealthCSR0083Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016National VoicesCSR0082Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016Royal College of NursingCSR0081Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016The Disabilities TrustCSR0080Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016Terrence Higgins TrustCSR0079Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016Carers UKCSR0078Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016Cancer Research UKCSR0077Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016Inclusion LondonCSR0075Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016Turning PointCSR0074Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016Cheshire West and Chester CouncilCSR0073Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016Optical Confederation and LOCSUCSR0072Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016Independent Clinical Services (ICS)CSR0071Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016Action on Hearing LossCSR0070Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016British Heart FoundationCSR0069Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016SenseCSR0068Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016ScopeCSR0067Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016DimensionsCSR0066Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016NHS Clinical Commissioners (NHSCC)CSR0065Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016NAT (National AIDS Trust)CSR0064Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016British Medical AssociationCSR0063Full text not held
  • 2 Feb 2016Nutricia: Advanced Medical NutritionCSR0062Full text not held