Health care surveys
This quarter’s report is based on an online survey of 87 NHS trust finance directors and 42 clinical commissioning group (CCG) finance leads (covering 47 CCGs).
Respondents were asked about their organisation’s financial situation and the financial outlook for their local health economy over the past and forthcoming financial year; the state of patient care in their area; the financial situation looking ahead to 2017/18; the key organisational challenges facing trusts and CCGs; and workforce issues.
1. Estimated end-of-year financial situation: 2015/16
The survey confirms the scale of deficits across the provider sector last year. 67 per cent of all providers say they ended 2015/16 in deficit – including 87 per cent of acute trusts (Figure 5).
Around 74 per cent of trust finance directors reported that their forecast position for 2015/16 relied on various forms of financial support and borrowing, including the release of resources from their organisation’s balance sheet; additional financial support from the Department of Health; drawing on reserves; and/or delaying or cancelling capital spending programmes (Figure 6).
The financial situation for CCGs has been and remains less precarious than for providers: 87 per cent of CCGs say they ended 2015/16 in surplus or breaking even, and 13 per cent expect to overspend (Figure 7).
Respondent comments
-
“The 2015/16 figures benefit from a £2.8 million ‘capital to revenue’ transfer from the Department of Health. We have managed to avoid using any other ‘jiggery pokery’ as the PAC [Public Account Committee] referred to it to improve the I&E [income and expenditure] position.”
Acute hospital foundation trust -
“Deteriorating operating position offset by non-recurrent benefits to achieve planned deficit.”
Teaching hospital (with community services) -
“We have had to release some resources from the organisation's balance sheet as a couple of provisions from 2014/15 have proved to be too generous. Without these we would have been close to running a deficit.”
Mental health foundation trust
Only foundation trusts are allowed to retain surpluses. Respondents were allowed to select more than one form of additional financial support.
Respondent comments
-
“The surplus is historical and difficult to draw down so essentially we operate on a breakeven basis.”
-
“Some of the actions taken to deliver the financial position for the CCG will have cost consequences in the following year.”
-
“Delivery of CCG target 1 per cent surplus with no margin for error!”
2. Projected end-of-year financial situation: 2016/17
Compared to end-of-year forecasts made at the beginning of the financial year, this survey forecasts the highest proportion (54 per cent) of trusts ending the current year (2016/17) in deficit (Figure 8).
Around 84 per cent of trust finance directors reported that their forecast position for 2016/17 would depend on significant financial support (Figure 9). Furthermore, 48 per cent of providers expecting to receive Sustainability and Transformation Fund monies still forecast a deficit by the end of the year.
- The total net deficit forecast for the end of 2016/17 for the 87 provider organisations surveyed amounted to £381 million. Scaled up to all acute providers the net deficit is £507 million (ranging from £1.45 to £40 million). Scaled up for each type of provider organisation, these figures suggest a net overall provider deficit across the NHS by the end of the 2016/17 financial year of around £1.4 billion.
Although around 60 per cent of CCGs forecast a surplus for 2016/17, nearly 20 per cent are expecting to overspend – the highest proportion since we began our surveys (Figure 10).
Across the 42 CCGs surveyed, there is a net surplus forecast for 2016/17 of around £44 million. Scaled up to all CCGs this is equivalent to a net surplus of around £200 million.
Respondent comments
-
“In line with the control total of £1.45 million deficit, using £7.6 million from the Sustainability and Transformation Fund.”
Acute (in deficit) -
“Agreed control total with NHS Improvement but high risk. Felt like we had to agree to have any chance of accessing Sustainability and Transformation Fund monies in-year…”
Acute foundation trust (in deficit) -
“Assumes we take the control total which is still being discussed and requires a heroic level of savings!!”
District general hospital plus specialist (in surplus)
QMR 1-4 based on a panel of 50 trust finance directors.
Respondent comments
-
“As a community interest company we are unable to continue to operate with a deficit so unless we can both deliver all savings plans and negotiate a successful settlement with commissioners, the company will be closed.”
Community interest company -
“Being paid for the work that we do – CCG affordability.”
Small/medium district general hospital -
“Major savings are needed from applying capped rates for agency staff – proving to be difficult.”
Acute trust -
“Dependent on effective contract negotiations.”
Mental health and community provider -
“The organisation is insolvent, having to borrow £millions to pay salaries. We are an efficient organisation that finds itself in this position by a lack of public funding and a Department of Health policy of raiding trust cash reserves rather than deal with the underlying problem.”
Acute foundation trust
Only foundation trusts are allowed to retain surpluses. Respondents were allowed to select more than one form of additional financial support.
Respondent comments
-
“The late requirement of CCGs to hold 1 per cent fully uncommitted without plans to spend for utilisation by the Sustainability and Transformation Plan footprint has led to almost 1 per cent forecast deficit/unidentified QIPP. The late change in policy is very unhelpful and is simply adding additional pressure into the local health system.”
-
“There are significant risks in this position. Contract with main provider has yet to be agreed and there is a large financial gap. Key issues relates to coding and counting changes as well as activity growth.”
42 CCG finance leads answered this question for the 47 CCGs they cover collectively; CCGs only surveyed since their establishment in April 2013.
3. Cost improvement and quality, innovation, productivity and prevention programmes (2016/17)
The average cost improvement programme (CIP) target for trusts for 2016/17 is 4.2 per cent, ranging from 2 per cent to 9 per cent of turnover.
The average quality, innovation, productivity and prevention (QIPP) target for CCGs for 2016/17 is 3.4 per cent, ranging from 1.5 per cent to 6 per cent of allocation (Figure 11).
38 per cent of all NHS trust finance directors are currently concerned about achieving their savings plans this year (Figure 12); this is the most pessimistic finance directors have been at this time of year since our survey began.
For the first time since we began surveying, CCG finance leads were more pessimistic than their trust counterparts about their savings programmes. Just under two-thirds (61 per cent) of all CCG finance leads were fairly or very concerned about achieving their plans this year (Figure 13).
Respondent comments
-
“In addition to trust CIP, commissioners are imposing further savings with county council seeking cuts of 7.5 per cent and CCGs 6 per cent.”
Community foundation trust (uncertain) -
“Schemes identified, but the history of recent years suggests that further efficiency savings will be challenging.”
Teaching hospital with community services (uncertain) -
“Urgent care pressures and social care cutbacks, high delayed transfers of care, no CCG measures to reduce demand. Lack of capacity.”
Acute (very concerned)
QMR 1-4 based on a panel of 50 finance directors. QMR1 and QMR5 excluded as wording of responses not compatible with other quarters' data.
Respondent comments
-
“50 per cent of schemes still unidentified.”
Fairly concerned -
“Of necessity our QIPP plan requires a sizeable reduction in activity with local providers (especially acute) which has yet to be clinically agreed and is not matched by an equivalent impact in the providers' plans.”
Fairly concerned -
“Delivery of QIPP depends ENTIRELY on co-operation of primary medical care – and they're under so much pressure they just can't/won't do it.”
Very concerned -
“Real transformational savings difficult to achieve without headroom to invest and lack of flexibility with 1 per cent non-recurrent reserve.”
Fairly concerned -
“Provider and commissioner goals remain non-congruent at a micro-level and NHS England planning requirements and impositions make designing and delivering QIPP harder. Clearly wider system working is the key to unlock this issue though much trust and shared risk will be required.”
Fairly concerned -
“Contracts not agreed, particularly main acute contract worth +£170 million and this provider has a huge deficit.”
Uncertain
42 CCG finance leads answered this question for the 47 CCGs they cover collectively; CCGs only surveyed since their establishment in April 2013.
4. The state of patient care
- Continuing the worsening trend since our last survey in January, 65 per cent of trust finance directors and 54 per cent of CCG finance leads felt that patient care had worsened in their local area in the past year (Figures 14 and 15).
Respondent comments
-
“Acute trust and CCG positions much worse, our own severely compromised by local authority budget cuts and public health grant reductions – the centre don't seem to recognise that local authority and public health cuts directly impact the NHS – there is no coverage at all other than a brief mention of disappointment that the CSR [comprehensive spending review] did not protect social care. These cuts are real and biting.”
Community and mental health foundation trust (worse) -
“NHS much more fragmented than I recall in the past 30 years. Seems to be becoming more fragmented despite papering over the cracks with system resilience groups and Sustainability and Transformation Plan places.”
Acute trust (worse) -
“Relentless and overwhelming pressures in urgent care are compromising quality and patient experience, increasing risk of poor care significantly and making delivery of planned elective care volumes in some specialties impossible.”
Acute trust (worse) -
“CCGs have no strategic vision or recognition of the issues they need to deal with, both have QIPP gaps of c£20 million each.”
Acute and community (worse)
Question not asked before QMR6.
Respondent comments
-
“NHS Improvement (Trust Development Authority and Monitor) and NHS England seem to be setting trusts and commissioners against each other, which is damaging relationships and trust.”
Worse -
“System working has deteriorated - mainly because no one has an answer to the money. Tariff system is unaffordable but no transformation from providers.”
Worse -
“NHS staff genuinely doing their best but now real issues in terms of the increased levels of demand – now affecting seasoned professionals in terms of onward decision-making (eg, experienced GPs not having time to manage patients and now having to refer to secondary care).”
Worse -
“Financial pressures now being experienced by most organisations in the local area.”
Worse -
“Due to capacity/workforce shortages in both health and social care – a mixture of inability to recruit and financial constraints.”
Worse
CCGs only surveyed since their establishment in April 2013.
5. Organisational challenges
For trust finance directors, delayed transfers of care is now their main concern, followed by the A&E four-hour waiting standard. Staff morale also continues to be one of the top three issues. (Figure 16).
CCG finance leads continue to be most concerned about the four-hour waiting time target in A&E, delayed transfers of care and the cancer treatment waiting times targets (Figure 17).
6. Central control of provider spending
As part of the strategy to return the provider sector to balance this year, and linked to access to additional funds, central controls on trust spending were announced earlier this year (NHS England 2015).
However, it is clear that this ‘money-with-strings’ deal is not straightforward for many providers. For example, our latest survey finds that just under half of respondents (44 per cent) still do not have an agreed control total in place for 2016/17 (Figure 18). Furthermore, 73 per cent of those that do have an agreed control total in place are either concerned or uncertain about meeting their control totals for 2016/17 (Figure 19).
Respondent comments
-
“Yes as they refused to negotiate and if we didn't accept we would run out of cash with no ability to seek support from the Sustainability and Transformation Fund we were told.”
District general hospital plus specialist (Yes, as originally proposed) -
“The trust is unable to accept the control total – due to local cost pressures, impact of tariff, an existing CIP target of 5 per cent and currently low levels of agency usage (and consequently minimal impact from the nursing ceiling/agency caps, etc).”
Trust (no) -
“Asked to deliver planned surplus of £1.8 million, plans deliver £1.3 million surplus. Due to elevated risks, board not able to accept level of risk, or confidently predict achieving £1.8 million without compromising quality.”
Community and mental health FT (no)
Respondent comments
-
“CCG affordability – will we be paid for the work that we do? If the CCG can't afford the activity what happens? Unclear on the conditionality around the Sustainability and Transformation Fund. How does A&E, Carter, agency spend play in to it? Some requirements may be mutually exclusive (A&E and agency spend for example). What will the new doctors’ contract cost?”
Small/ medium district general hospital (fairly concerned) -
“Assumptions used in calculating the control total regarding price stability/ commissioner behaviour (CQUIN, QIPP, local prices, etc) not being played out in contract T&Cs and negotiations.”
Acute trust (very concerned) -
“Still to finalise key contracts with one CCG and NHS England.”
Mental health foundation trust (uncertain)
49 respondents who have agreed control totals in place
Another part of the strategy to control provider spending has been the imposition of trust-by-trust controls on spending on agency staff. These included setting a maximum hourly rate for agency doctors and nurses and placing a cap on total agency staff spending for each NHS trust.
More than half of all providers in our survey (54 per cent) were fairly or very concerned about their organisation being able to secure agency nursing staff at the Agenda for Change (AfC) ‘+ 55 %’ hourly rate cap as set by NHS Improvement (Figure 20).
Respondent comments
-
“Major agencies are still not accepting the cap in key specialties.”
Large acute teaching (very concerned) -
“Very difficult in geographically isolated areas when staff can choose to go elsewhere for the same or better money and without the time and travel costs.”
Acute trust, multiple small sites (very concerned) -
“Risks of pushing problems around organisations and upward pressure on pay costs.”
Mental health foundation trust (uncertain)
7. NHS five year forward view - one year on
Previous surveys have revealed a high degree of scepticism about the achievability of the productivity challenge as set out by the Forward View.
This survey shows that around 87 per cent of trust finance directors and 79 per cent of CCG finance leads think there is a high or very high risk of failing to achieve the productivity gains suggested by the Forward View (Figures 21 and 22).
Respondent comments
-
“The problem is that the FYFV has got it wrong. The requirement is much greater.”
Acute teaching (little risk of failure) -
“After six years of austerity there is little left to go for. This year's 4.3 per cent efficiency requirement (ie, well above the 2.5 per cent headline) belies claims that the NHS now has the funding to get back on its financial feet in 2016/17.”
Specialist provider trust (very high risk of failure) -
“Many gains, if delivered, would adversely impact upon the quality of care or access to care. Change in organisational form (eg, towards ACOs [accountable care organisations]) may be necessary to deliver radical system-wide productivity improvements as to achieve through risk-share agreements, contracting relationships etc. while each organisation is being regulated as an individual entity may prove impossible.”
Acute provider (high risk of failure)
Question not asked in QMR16.
Respondent comments
-
“Productivity gains can be measured in a number of ways but this time they are required to deliver cash savings that take costs out of the system in order to balance the books.”
Very high risk of failure -
“Patient expectation and demand will be the key problems for the NHS. Workforce is also a big issue.”
Very high risk of failure -
“Acute trusts will not work together with us in reducing expenditure. Their focus remains on maximising income.”
Very high risk of failure -
“Opportunities identified by the Carter review for trusts are in my opinion only partially deliverable. The Right Care information produced for CCGs is very valuable, but will take some time to work up schemes. Also some are longer-term issues (eg, lifestyle changes). But very important to tackle.”
High risk of failure
Question not asked in QMR16.
8. Mental health waiting time standards
On 1 April 2016 the Department of Health introduced the first mental health access and waiting times standards (Department of Health 2014). Among these new targets is an Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme and standards for Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP).
Just under two-thirds (64 per cent) of CCG finance leads are either fairly or very confident that the providers with which they contract will meet the new standards in mental health (Figure 23). However, 41 per cent of mental health trust finance directors are either very or fairly concerned about meeting the new standards (Figure 24).
Respondent comments
-
“No funding is being offered by ANY commissioners for this target and the investment required is significant. Despite this we are still being tasked by regulators to deliver. The whole national system is not joined up with what is happening locally.”
Very concerned -
“Commissioners do not recognise the need for investment to deliver.”
Very concerned
29 respondents (for whom the question was applicable)
9. Looking ahead to 2017/18
When asked for their views about the financial state of their wider local health and care economy over the next 12 months, 95 per cent of trust finance directors are fairly or very pessimistic (Figure 25). Around 86 per cent of CCG finance leads feel fairly or very pessimistic (Figure 26).
With slightly more than half of trusts (54 per cent) forecasting a deficit for 2016/17, the situation looks worse for 2017/18: 64 per cent of NHS trust finance directors are very or fairly pessimistic about balancing their books in 2017/18 (Figure 27).
Overall, CCG leads are less optimistic than in previous surveys, and more than half (54 per cent) are very or fairly pessimistic about achieving financial balance in 2017/18 (Figure 28).
Respondent comments
-
“Organisations seem more desperate than ever to ensure that their individual positions are protected. This is often at the expense of increased cost in the system as a whole. The system of penalties is an industry in itself generating more cost for the NHS as a whole for no obvious benefit.”
Acute trust (very pessimistic) -
“Not only are there finance shortfalls but commissioners are making poor decisions, eg, cutting intermediate care by 5 per cent without understanding consequences.”
Community foundation trust (very pessimistic) -
“CCGs cannot afford current scope and scale of health care provision, but have no firm plans to restructure services to deliver structural savings.”
Unknown (very pessimistic) -
“There is simply not enough money in the system. You can't have a health system costing 9–10 per cent of GDP when you're only prepared to spend 6 per cent!”
Acute trust, multiple small sites (very pessimistic) -
“The system is broken as it stands, although we do have a long-term plan to return to financial sustainability.”
Acute trust (very pessimistic) -
“Acute and CCG positions are precarious, we hope to scrape through but will inevitably be impacted by wider pressures.”
Community and mental health (very pessimistic)
Question not asked before QMR3; QMR 1-4 based on a panel of 50 finance directors.
Respondent comments
-
“The local acute trust has an underlying deficit of £20 million which is equal to 10 per cent of turnover.”
Very pessimistic -
“Quality concerns are growing with all provider organisations.”
Very pessimistic -
“This is one of the financially stronger parts of the country historically – so this is serious. A lot is being pinned on Sustainability and Transformation Plans and shared control totals, but that isn't going to happen in time to solve the 2016/17 challenge.”
Very pessimistic -
“The overall financial situation is the worst I have known in a long NHS career.”
Very pessimistic
CCGs only surveyed since their establishment in April 2013.
Respondent comments
-
“Over-reliance on a tight tariff. Commissioners not commissioning just avoiding as much spending as possible.”
Acute trust (very concerned) -
“Who knows? And who takes the rap for failure?”
Acute and community trust (uncertain) -
“Depends on how much of the growth monies put into the NHS feed through to prices.”
Acute (uncertain) -
“There is no plan for 2017/18. Indeed, nationally we moved back to one-year plans for 2016/17 with the system plan for 2017/18 onwards being masterminded in a different room in splendid isolation, and in any case at this stage at hypothetical system not organisational level.”
Acute hospital (very concerned) -
“It will take four years.”
Acute trust (very concerned)
Respondent comments
-
“My CCG will deliver our target but our modest surplus is dwarfed by the combined provider deficits, and the stark reality is that the operational cost of delivery is currently greater than the total resource in the system.”
Fairly confident -
“The notified allocation uplift of 2 per cent in 2017/18, taking into account current pressures, projections and pre-commitments against the very limited additional funding means that achieving financial targets in 2017/18 will be very very difficult. (Financial balance may be possible in year by utilising brought forward non recurrent surpluses.)”
Very concerned -
“2016/17 will see a movement to share existing provider deficits across the system. As pressures present this will put real strain on all parts of the health system.”
Very concerned
References
NHS England, NHS Improvement, Care Quality Commission, Public Health England, Health Education England, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2015). Delivering the forward view: NHS planning guidance 2016/17 – 2020/21. Leeds: NHS England. Available at: www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/futurenhs/deliver-forward-view/ (accessed on 13 May 2016).
Department of Health (2014). Achieving better access to mental health services by 2020. London: Department of Health. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/mental-health-services-achieving-better-access-by-2020 (accessed on 13 May 2016).
Respondent comments