NHS CHC:  Usual Cost of Delivery/Review Pricing

Are your pricing systems and fee tariffs reflective of the usual cost of delivering services for CHC?  There is a general ‘putting off’ approach to tackling the usual cost issue, and yet procurement processes and pricing systems can be improved by developing a greater understanding of the local cost of delivering services.

To achieve this Valuing Care collects detailed financial information from your selected providers to analyse and benchmark the results against our database comparator in order to challenge and corroborate findings.

We engage with care home providers to evidence the usual cost of providing services; helping to inform the setting of future rates for services that are fair, sustainable and evidence based.

 

Focus on: Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland CCGs

 

 

 

The CCG’s commissioned Valuing Care to undertake a cost review of care home services for older people with continuing healthcare needs. The purpose of the review was to help the Council update its fee tariff for patients in each band of need.

Through established processes Valuing Care undertook a survey of care home costs to identify the usual cost of providing services to patients in each band. The cross corroboration of the survey results with Valuing Care’s cost model and national intelligence provided the CCGs with clear guidance of what represents a fair rate for
a standard service, and how this could be adjusted to reflect higher levels of care.

Key benefits:
• The comparison of the survey results against Valuing Care’s cost model and national intelligence facilitated critical challenge of the local survey result.
• Increased intelligence about how service provider costs vary to meet the needs of patients within each CHC band of need.
• Development of a fee tariff which reflects the usual cost of delivering services locally.

 

Focus on: Bath & North East Somerset Council and Clinical Commissioning Group

Valuing Care completed a review of the cost of providing care home services to younger adults with learning/physical disabilities and/or mental health needs; to inform commissioners’ decisions about future fees and how these vary to meet different types and levels of need.
A cost survey with local care home providers identified the usual cost of delivering services. The results were benchmarked against two similar reviews undertaken for neighbouring authorities, and against Valuing Care’s cost model, and national
intelligence of care home costs.

This provided commissioners with a high level of confidence in what represents a reasonable allocation for each cost type. Valuing Care used the data to populate a cost model to guide price setting for service users with varying levels of need.

Key benefits:
• Established processes for engaging service providers and maximising participation in local cost surveys.
• Benchmarking against Valuing Care’s cost model and national intelligence provides confidence of what represents a reasonable
allocation for each cost type.
• Development of bespoke cost models reflecting the local cost of delivering services, and designed to meet individual customer’s
needs.

 

Focus on: NHS Central Midlands Commissioning Support Unit

Developing a Framework Agreement to inform providers of the value for money price the Clinical Commissioning Group would expect to pay for a service was high on the agenda for NHS Central Midlands Commissioning Support Unit.

Valuing Care collected detailed financial information from selected providers delivering nursing and domiciliary services across standard, enhanced and complex service bands.

The information was analysed and the survey results benchmarked against our database comparator in order to challenge and corroborate the survey results.

Key benefits:
• Highlighted considerable variation in service levels provided to CHC patients with enhanced and complex needs.
• Raised questions about the achievability of fixed rates for these levels of care.
• Provided clear guidance on standard nursing home and domiciliary care service costs.
• Recommended a mechanism for adjusting the standard rates to meet higher levels of need.