» Articles » PMID: 36304783

Commissioning [Integrated] Care in England: An Analysis of the Current Decision Context

Overview
Publisher Ubiquity Press
Date 2022 Oct 28
PMID 36304783
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The emergence of Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) across England poses an additional challenge and responsibility for local commissioners to accelerate the implementation of integrated care programmes and improve the overall efficiency across the system. To do this, ICS healthcare commissioners could learn from the experience of the former local commissioning structures and identify areas of improvement in the commissioning process. This study describes the investment decision process in integrated care amid the transition toward ICSs, highlights challenges, and provides recommendations to inform ICSs in their healthcare commissioning role.

Methods: Twenty-six semi-structured interviews were conducted with local commissioners and other relevant stakeholders in South East England in 2021. Interviews were supplemented with literature.

Results: England's local healthcare commissioning has made the transition towards a new organisational architecture, with some integrated care programmes running, and a dual top-down and bottom-up prioritisation process in place. The commissioning and consequent development of integrated care programmes have been hindered by various barriers, including difficulties in accessing and using information, operational challenges, and resource constraints. Investment decisions have mainly been driven by national directives and budget considerations, with a mixture of subjective and objective approaches. A systematic and data-driven framework could replace this ad-hoc prioritisation of integrated care and contribute to a more rational and transparent commissioning process.

Conclusion: The emerging ICSs seem to open an opportunity for local commissioners to strengthen the commissioning process of integrated care with evidence-based priority-setting approaches similar to the well-established health technology assessment framework at the national level.

Citing Articles

Commissioning and co-production in health and care services in the United Kingdom and Ireland: An exploratory literature review.

Scott R, Mathie E, Newman H, Almack K, Brady L Health Expect. 2024; 27(3):e14053.

PMID: 38698629 PMC: 11066417. DOI: 10.1111/hex.14053.


The impact of socioeconomic factors, social determinants, and ethnicity on the utilization of glucose sensor technology among persons with diabetes mellitus: a narrative review.

Been R, Lameijer A, Gans R, van Beek A, Kingsnorth A, Choudhary P Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab. 2024; 15:20420188241236289.

PMID: 38476216 PMC: 10929059. DOI: 10.1177/20420188241236289.


Evaluation of intensive community care services for young people with psychiatric emergencies: study protocol for a multi-centre parallel-group, single-blinded randomized controlled trial with an internal pilot phase.

Thaventhiran T, Wong B, Pilecka I, Masood S, Atanda O, Clacey J Trials. 2024; 25(1):141.

PMID: 38389089 PMC: 10885519. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-024-07974-5.


Eliciting and prioritising determinants of improved care in multimorbidity: A modified online Delphi study.

Simpson G, Stuart B, Hijryana M, Akyea R, Stokes J, Gibson J J Multimorb Comorb. 2023; 13:26335565231194552.

PMID: 37692105 PMC: 10483969. DOI: 10.1177/26335565231194552.


Value-Based Integrated Care (VBIC) Concept Implementation in a Real-World Setting-Problem-Based Analysis of Barriers and Challenges.

Bandurska E, Ciecko W, Olszewska-Karaban M, Damps-Konstanska I, Szalewska D, Janowiak P Healthcare (Basel). 2023; 11(8).

PMID: 37107944 PMC: 10138009. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11081110.

References
1.
Marks L, Hunter D, Scalabrini S, Gray J, McCafferty S, Payne N . The return of public health to local government in England: changing the parameters of the public health prioritization debate?. Public Health. 2015; 129(9):1194-203. DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2015.07.028. View

2.
Williams I, Bryan S . Understanding the limited impact of economic evaluation in health care resource allocation: a conceptual framework. Health Policy. 2006; 80(1):135-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.03.006. View

3.
Rocks S, Berntson D, Gil-Salmeron A, Kadu M, Ehrenberg N, Stein V . Cost and effects of integrated care: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Eur J Health Econ. 2020; 21(8):1211-1221. PMC: 7561551. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-020-01217-5. View

4.
Murage P, Crawford S, Bachmann M, Jones A . Geographical disparities in access to cancer management and treatment services in England. Health Place. 2016; 42:11-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.08.014. View

5.
Saunders C, Flynn S, Massou E, Lyratzopoulos G, Abel G, Burt J . Sociodemographic inequalities in patients' experiences of primary care: an analysis of the General Practice Patient Survey in England between 2011 and 2017. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2021; 26(3):198-207. PMC: 8182330. DOI: 10.1177/1355819620986814. View