LGA casts doubt on payment-by-results public health plans
By Vivienne Russell | 24 January 2012
Plans to pay councils according to the public health results
they achieve could be overly simplistic, local government leaders have warned.
Health Secretary Andrew Lansley yesterday announced that councils
that make measurable improvements to their communities’ public health will be
rewarded with a cash premium.
Lansley launched a document setting out 66 health measures
to help councils and government to determine local public health priorities and
to assess progress being made. These include lower smoking rates, reduced
obesity, fewer old people suffering falls and more women breastfeeding their
babies.
From April this year, councils will receive a share of a
£5.2bn public health funding pot to discharge their new duties.
The document said the premium
would ‘highlight, and incentivise action on, a small number of indicators that
reflect national or local strategic priorities’.
Lansley said: ‘Every area in the country is different so
councils will be able to decide what the most important public health concern
is for them and spend the money appropriately.
‘It is absolutely right that the budget and decision-making
sits with councils. They will be able to address all aspects that affect our
wellbeing – such as school attendance, homelessness and fuel poverty – in the
round.’
But the Local Government Association warned
that a payment-by-results approach could be too crude. David Rogers, chair of
the LGA community wellbeing board, said: ‘Councils that are doing well and
helping to improve people’s health and reduce health inequalities should
rightly be rewarded but a “payment by results” system could be over-simplistic
and fail to recognise the specific needs of local areas, including factors such
as poverty, housing, education and transport.
‘Local authorities are ready to pick up
the mantle of public health but we must be given the resources to do so. Only
then can councils truly be at the forefront of tackling the social factors that
contribute to poor health and providing services that help people to live long
and healthy lives.’
Rogers added that a lack of clarity over funding was
hampering councils’ public health preparations, and said authorities were
concerned that allocations were being determined on inaccurate data.
‘To be effective, funding must be based on a formula that is
transparent, robust and fairly represents an area’s needs,’ he said.
The Department
of Health said it would publish further details on the premium as part of a
finance update shortly.
