1 / 8

CAPITAL CONCERNS Payment by Results

CAPITAL CONCERNS Payment by Results. Marcus Roberts Director of Policy and Membership, DrugScope. ‘A radical programme of public service reform’. ‘localising power and funding’ ( remove ring fences and promote personal budgets) ‘cutting burdens and regulations on frontline staff’

ziven
Télécharger la présentation

CAPITAL CONCERNS Payment by Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CAPITAL CONCERNSPayment by Results Marcus Roberts Director of Policy and Membership, DrugScope

  2. ‘A radical programme of public service reform’ • ‘localising power and funding’ (remove ring fences and promote personal budgets) • ‘cutting burdens and regulations on frontline staff’ • ‘increasing diversity of provision in public services through further use of payment by results, removing barriers to greater independent provision, and supporting communities, citizens and volunteers to play a bigger role in shaping and providing services’ • ‘improve transparency, efficiency and accountability’ ‘Reform’ – SPENDING REVIEW 2010

  3. What is (and isn’t) it • Paying for results is not always Payment by Results • Payment by Results is not always paying for results • There are a number of Payment by Results schemes (‘family resemblance’) • The Drug Treatment PbR scheme is arguably the most radical (other nominees include Peterborough Social Bond Pilot)

  4. The end(s) in view • Free of drug/s of dependence • Reduced offending or continued non-offending • Employment(sustained employment or full-time education – rate of people moving off benefits) • Health and well-being (‘to reflect stakeholder feedback on the need to ensure harm reduction gains are maintained and to reflect more holistic progress towards recovery’)

  5. Where we’re at • Selection of pilot sites ‘co-design’ • Pilots start in October (with consideration of national roll out pencilled in for 2014-15) • Specifying outcomes (including interim measures) and working out tariffs and payments • Development of LASARS (Local Area Single Assessment and Referral Services) • Sorting out the evaluation (does PbR support the drug strategy, public health policy objectives and provide value for money) • No extra cash …

  6. Some issues • Outcomes reflect reality of recovery • Risk of perverse incentives (cherry picking and parking) • NHS standards and regulatory frameworks • Methods for assessing results with minimal bureaucracy • Service user role in negotiating outcomes (families) • What’s the role for VCS (especially smaller and local) • Incentivising co-operation and responding to local environments

  7. Is it relevant (if I’m not in Enfield)? • A multitude of schemes • Prospect of national roll-out in three years • ‘It’s already happening where we are …’ • Payment by Results is setting a standard for other commissioners • New element in Pooled Treatment Budget formula to ‘incentivise local systems to become more recovery focused’ – rewarding partnerships for successful completions (applied in 2012-13 allocations based on outcomes for 2011-12) ONE POT, ONE PURPOSE (Feb 2011)

  8. Contact Details E-mail: marcusr@drugscope.org.uk Tel: 0207 940 7520 E-mail: marcusr@drugscope.org.uk Website: www.drugscope.org.uk

More Related