Far better Care Fund strategies are weak but integration is the essential to quality

The Far better Care Fund is below scrutiny. Photograph: Martin Godwin

The Better Care Fund is under scrutiny, and with it, nearby government’s function in the health and care technique.

Until finally a number of weeks in the past, integration was observed as the ideal hope for enhancing care good quality although coping with rising demand in an age of austerity. Now that belief is faltering.

In March a research by York University of 38 schemes close to the globe pooling overall health and social care resources – including 13 in England – identified none had secured a sustained reduction in hospital use.

Last week, NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens, making clear his scepticism more than the very likely impact of schemes to be funded from up coming year by the Better Care Fund, advised the well being decide on committee: “There are all types of techniques of performing [integration] which do not function.”

Now the Guardian has unveiled Cabinet Office issues that the £3.8bn programme is delivering scant proof that it will minimize hospital admissions – a important aim.

Under the coalition the Cabinet Office has become heavily concerned in scrutinising large policy initiatives. A report by its Implementation Unit has questioned the top quality and evidence base of the programs submitted to the fund by overall health and wellbeing boards.

The roots of the Implementation Unit can be traced back to Labour’s strong prime minister’s delivery unit and it has a related function – pushing departments to translate policy into delivery, with a distinct focus on revolutionary ideas.

It is component of the Implementation Group, which has wide-ranging responsibilities for driving public support and Whitehall reform. Its executive director is Will Cavendish, who as a former director of overall health and wellbeing at the Department of Health is aware of how tough it is to flip integration strategies into outcomes.

It is hardly surprising that the original local strategies for the Better Care Fund are weak. The fund was announced final June, and charged two bodies which had only existed for weeks – clinical commissioning groups and well being and wellbeing boards – with overseeing preparations.

With the NHS and local government frantically making an attempt to get the new wellness structure to operate, it is hardly surprising that they have not been universally profitable in drafting watertight proposals for performing one thing councils and the well being service have not accomplished in 65 many years – coordinating their perform.

Health and wellbeing boards signed off the programs. Almost all committed a critical error – they failed to involve their hospitals sufficiently in drawing them up. This is an understandable error, given that the legislation establishing the boards skews them heavily in the direction of overseeing the commissioning side of the NHS, and does not determine hospital trusts as compulsory members. It is taking boards time to realise they should disregard this and embrace the trusts as full partners.

But the injury has been accomplished. With hospitals feeling they are being stripped of badly needed money to pay for an untested scheme from which they felt excluded, NHS self-confidence in the Much better Care Fund has all but collapsed.

The integration strategies have also exposed regional government’s weakness when it comes to supplying robust proof to justify policy (though ministers are hardly in a place to lecture on this). When attempting to win over a health service which is heavily dependent on data and evidence, the paucity of convincing numbers has left the Better Care Fund plans hunting unconvincing.

The fund is totemic of the new partnership among local government and the NHS. No matter how difficult, it is essential that councils make it a good results, and show the worth of the leadership and accountability that they can deliver to the well being support.

There is nonetheless time to make it function. The schemes run from April 2015, so there is a year to deal with weaknesses and involve trusts. Councils should be observed to be tough in testing assumptions, as well as gathering data on what works and jettisoning rapidly what doesn’t. This is a massive check of councils’ credibility.

• Want your say? E mail sarah.marsh@theguardian.com to recommend contributions to the network.

Not currently a member? Join us now for much more comment, examination and the newest occupation options in local government.

Far better Care Fund strategies are weak but integration is the essential to quality