Health select Committee review of commissioning

The Health Select Committee has decided to undertake an inquiry into commissioning in the NHS.

The terms of reference for the inquiry are as follows:

1. "World-Class Commissioning": what does this initiative tell us about how effective commissioning by PCTs is?
2. The rationale behind commissioning: has the purchaser/ provider split been a success and is it needed?
3. Commissioning and "system reform": how does commissioning fit with Practice based Commissioning, "contestability" and the quasi-market, and Payment by Results?
4. Specialist commissioning;
5. Commissioning for the quality and safety of services.
   

Organisations and individuals are invited to submit written evidence to the inquiry.

Payment by Results for Kidney Dialysis Project Group

This interim report has been produced by the renal PbR project group which has been working on the development of tariffs for renal dialysis. Guidance has been developed to inform the 2008/09 reference cost exercise and the aim is to develop a mandatory tariff for dialysis for 2010/11.

Published September 2008, 22 pages

New release of NICE commissioning tools

In December 2007 NICE released an updated version (version 2) of the commissioning tools, offering enhanced functionality to end users, and updating the five commissioning tools published last year for activity, population and Payment by Results data.

This new version of the commissioning tools enables; commissioners within strategic health authorities to log in and view data at primary care trust level; general practices within a commissioning group to give other practices in their group permission to view their data, and to model commissioning intentions for the group; 3-year planning of commissioning intentions; the creation of user notes to accompany any commissioning model created; printing of selected tables, or all tables, within a commissioning tool together with any associated user notes.

Over December 2007 and January 2008 six new tools have been released.

Kings Fund Briefing: Payment by Results

In 2002 the Department of Health announced a fundamental change to the way in which NHS hospitals in England are paid for the work they do. Under this new system – Payment by Results (PbR) – hospitals are reimbursed for the activity they carry out using a tariff of fixed prices that reflect national average costs. The government is currently considering whether and how the system can be improved and extended to more services in the future. This briefing explains how Payment by Results works, examines the evidence on whether the system has achieved, or is likely to achieve, the policy aims set for it, and describes the government’s current proposals for the future of PbR.

(Published October 2007, 8 pages)

Payment by Results (PbR) for stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) services

The aim of this fact sheet is to help those affected by Payment by Results (PbR) understand how it works and ensure that the system operates in the best possible way for people in need of stroke care. This fact sheet begins by explaining the PbR tariff and looks at the key issues for stroke and TIA services. PbR is a way of paying for services commissioned on behalf of NHS patients provided by NHS Trusts, NHS Foundation Trusts (FTs), Independent Sector Extended Choice Network providers and PCTs. There is a national price list for all activity within the scope of PbR – this is the “national tariff”. Providers are paid according to the amount of activity they do, multiplied by the relevant tariff price. Activity x Price = Income

(Published July 2007, 13 Pages)

Other Department of Health Documents

Options for the future of Payment by Results: 2008/09 to 2010/11

Operating framework 2007-08: PCT baseline review of services for end of life care

The Primary Care Trust (National Specialised Services Commissioning Group) Directions 2007

Payment by results: opportunity or threat for mental health commissioners?

Parsonage argues that payment by results represents both an opportunity and a threat for mental health commissioners. On the positive side, it offers PCTs the chance to exert more leverage in the system, for example in the planning and design of services and, where supply conditions permit, in promoting choice and contestability. On the downside, it requires them to manage more risks, particularly financial risks.

Primary Care Mental Health, 2005, vol. 3, no. 4, p. 271-273 (available via your local NHS Library)