Minutes:
Medium Term Financial Strategy 2016/17 -
2019/20
The Committee
considered a joint report of the Director of Public Health and Director of
Corporate Resources which provided information on the proposed 2016/17 to
2019/20 Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) as it related to the Public
Health Department. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item ‘8’ is filed with
these minutes.
The Chairman
welcomed Mr E F White CC, Cabinet Lead Member for Health to the meeting for
this item.
In introducing the
report the Director of Public Health and Cabinet Lead Member advised that the
Department’s overall approach was to redesign services where possible to
improve outcomes as well as saving money.
The Department had an exemplary track record of delivery in this area
which gave confidence that the proposed savings were deliverable, although it
was acknowledged that there would also be some risks associated with the
projects. In some cases the work to
deliver savings during 2016/17 was already underway.
In response to the
financial challenge it was facing, the Department was focused on:-
Arising from discussion the
Committee was advised as follows:-
Service Transformation
(i)
The Department was keen to encourage
community involvement in the delivery of appropriate services, as outlined in
the Annual Report of the Director of Public Health for 2015. It was intended that this approach would sit
outside formal voluntary sector arrangements and would empower communities to
take responsibility for their own health and wellbeing.
Proposed
Revenue Budget
(ii) The Committee was disappointed
to note that the grant allocation for 2016/17 from the Department of Health had
not yet been confirmed. However, it
welcomed the Department’s pragmatic approach to setting its budget using
estimates.
(iii) The contribution to other County
Council preventative services made by the Public Health Department would be
reviewed as part of a comprehensive approach to early help across the Council
aimed at bringing all preventative spend together.
Savings
(iv) PH2 – Reduction in Health Checks
The Health Check programme was
statutory; however the fees that the County Council paid to GPs for carrying
out Health Checks were at the higher end of the national range. There was some risk attached to this saving
as any reduction in fees would be dependent on the outcome of negotiation with
GPs.
(v) PH4 Review of Physical Activity
Services and Contracts
It was intended that the
physical activity service would be focused on delivery; to that end the
reduction in funding to district council was expected to cease the funding of
physical activity co-ordinators. It was
recognised that this was not an efficient use of funding and district councils
were already working to identify alternative service models. The reduction in funding would not affect
high impact services such as exercise on referral schemes or the infrastructure
provided by Leicester-Shire and Rutland Sport to support physical activity
across Leicestershire.
(vi) PH6 Review of Smoking and
Tobacco Services and Contracts
It was acknowledged that the
increased usage of e-cigarettes and the time-intensive nature of current
smoking cessation services meant that there had been a reduction in
activity. The smoking cessation service
would therefore be redesigned to be more cost effective and to take
international best practice into account.
The intensive services such as one-to-one or group sessions would still
be available, but only for targeted groups such as Looked After
Children. These would be supported by
universal telephone or web based services which would be less resource
intensive and emerging national and international evidence showed that them to
be effective.
A future service redesign,
currently proposed for 2017/18, would involve integrating all lifestyle
services, such as substance misuse and obesity services as well as smoking and
tobacco services, into a single lifestyle behaviours service.
Capital Programme
(vii) The warm and healthy homes
scheme was funded through an external grant following a successful bid for
funding. The County Council’s spend on the project would be delivered through
the Papworth Trust, although the Trust would not provide services. There were a number of ways in which
vulnerable people could access the scheme, including through the Lightbulb
Project, in-house service, district council services or those provided by a
charity.
RESOLVED:
(a) That the report and information now provided
be noted;
(b) That the comments now made be forwarded to
the Scrutiny Commission for consideration at its meeting on 27 January 2016.
Supporting documents: