Agenda item

In attendance for this item: Simon Perks, Director of System Transformation, K&M STP

1)    The Chair welcomed Mr Perks to the meeting and invited him to update the Committee on the establishment of a single CCG across Kent and Medway from 1 April 2020.

2)    Mr Perks explained that since the last update to HOSC, the 8 Kent and Medway CCGs had voted to establish a single entity. NHS England had authorised the move, subject to a number of conditions. Their final decision was expected soon.

3)    He outlined some of the benefits a single CCG would bring:

·         A consistent approach to decision making;

·         A move away from the commissioner/ provider split with a fresh focus on collaboration;

·         An opportunity to ensure consistency of contracts and service provision across the county, by way of a single entity having oversight of the whole county;

·         The capability of commissioning services at scale;

·         A real opportunity to realise integration across the NHS as well as social care.

4)    Recruitment to posts was underway, with some roles already recruited to.

5)    One Member voiced concern over the large size of the new CCG, along with an inherent disparity in funding across the county and the cost of recruiting to the new posts. She questioned what consultation would be held, and Mr Perks explained that formal consultation was not required for back-office reorganisation such as this, but they had been engaging stakeholders.

6)    Steve Inett explained that Healthwatch Kent had produced a report entitled “Focus on Commissioning: A Healthwatch Kent report”, which was appended to the agenda. The report drew on six years of HOSC documents and feedback to Healthwatch Kent in order to highlight key lessons learnt during the commissioning process, in the hope that the new single CCG would learn from these lessons.

7)    Members questioned if the move to a single entity would reduce local choice. Mr Perks explained that the 4 Integrated Care Partnerships (ICP) and Primary Care Networks (PCN) would provide that local input. In addition, GPs sat on the CCG Board and they were drawn from across the county.

8)    Going forward, the ICPs would be responsible for the health of the population in which they operate. That was currently the responsibility of the CCG.

9)    Mr Perks referred to the CCG ratings shown in item 8 of the agenda and explained that the new CCG was not the sum of those eight bodies but an entirely new commissioning entity. Some of the reasons behind the poor ratings would be addressed by the establishment of a single CCG; for example, some CCGs were not currently large enough to absorb risk.

10) Mr Perks concluded by saying that the move to a single CCG was in response to a national agenda. Given the many challenges facing the NHS, doing nothing was not an option. Finance alone would not solve the issues, and there was a great need to learn from past experiences.

11) RESOLVED that the Committee note the report.