There is an Extraordinary Meeting of the Governing Body of the Brent Clinical Commissioning Group at noon-1.30pm on Wednesday 14thDecember at the Boardroom Wembley Centre for Health and Care. The meeting is open to the public and 30 minutes has been allocated to questions from the public.
The meeting is about the business case for Shaping a Healthier Future and the CCG consider this essential for ‘delivering’ the controversial NW London Sustainability and Transformation Plan. Cllr Krupesh Hirani confirmed in the Brent and Kilburn Times today that Brent Council intends to sign the STP despite the fact that neighbouring Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham councils have refused to do so.
As usual the documents are massive, jargon ridden and with enough acronyms to fill Wembley Stadium.
Anyone who manages to plough through them AND understand them deserves an honorary degree.
Those who think that the STP, though argued on the basis of benefits to patients, is really a cover for cuts may be interested in the Strategic Outline Case for investment to eventually save money:
For trusts under the ‘comparator’ scenario, where no commissioner QIPP is assumed to be delivered and with business-as-usual CIP delivery, all our provider trusts will be in financial deficit, with a combined deficit of £114m at 2024/25. However, if commissioner QIPP were delivered, trusts’ I&E would improve to a combined deficit of £18m as additional CIPs can be achieved (termed the ‘SaHF scenario before reconfiguration). The CCG QIPP delivery is dependent in part on the building of the hubs, which is why it is not included in the ‘comparator’. If we receive the capital funding we are requesting, the trusts’ financial projections demonstrate that all trusts will have a sustainable I&E surplus position of £27.6m at 2024/25, with the reconfiguration contributing a c£50m benefit (termed the ‘SaHF scenario after reconfiguration’).
Currently the trusts are running in-year deficits which would require an estimated cash support of £1.1bn over the next 10 years (and continue thereafter), which would reduce to £0.5bn under the ‘SaHF scenario before reconfiguration’ (where additional CIPs are delivered, partly due to hub investment to enable QIPP delivery). Under the SOC part 1 option (‘SaHF scenario after reconfiguration’), the cash deficit support in the 10-year period would reduce further to £0.4bn and are eliminated post reconfiguration.
If the capital investment were funded by loans, two of the trusts would have a below target Financial Sustainability Risk Rating (FSRR) and be unable to meet the loan repayments. As the loan funding scenario is unaffordable from a liquidity perspective, we have explored two further scenarios and have concluded that our preferred option is for Public Dividend Capital (PDC) funding, and an accelerated timeline.
We have also demonstrated that the case is affordable under a range of scenarios by conducting sensitivity analyses.
