Evaluating Simon Stevens Dowry

After over a year's wait for a blog, two come along inside a week...

After Tuesday's blog describing the discombobulation of NHS England's Simon Stevens when asked  to consider the concept of fairness, I have found myself continuing to think about the dowry proposal made prior to that moment. It needs to be unpacked as a concept because I think it tells us a lot about the thinking that is happening and thinking that is not happening currently.

If we look at the exchange as transcribed here:


Q63 Austin Mitchell: I just want to pursue the financial imperative. The targets were overambitious for financial reasons: the fact that the money did not follow the patient created local resistance to having the patients. Paragraph 2.24 says, “Meeting the needs of people in the community, who NHS England previously funded in hospital, is a material cost to local commissioners. This can affect their ability to provide appropriate and sustainable care packages. Hospitals subsequently experience significant delays in discharging patients while complex negotiations continue”. This must mean that you can speed up the process through a fairer, better financial arrangement with the CCGs and local providers.

Simon Stevens: What makes this complex is that you have two sets of things going on there. One is that there are a group of people who have been in institutional care for a very long time. When you talk about moving them, as we will be when we are closing some of these facilities, you need to take the old mental health model—we talk about dowries and funding endowments that move with people, and those might be partly with the local authority and partly with the local CCG. If you look at the fact that a fifth of people in in-patient settings have been there for more than five years, those are the sort of folks for whom you are talking about dowries. But for people who have been in an in-patient setting funded by specialist care for three or six months, that is not so much about their ongoing support for ever; that is a moment in time when they are getting something. Distinguishing between those two categories is what we have to do. Some of this will have to be dowry-type arrangements; some will just have to be about a recognition that, actually, this is the CCG’s or the local authority’s funding responsibility, and they will have to step up to the plate.


On a superficial reading, the response made by Simon Stevens could be read as though some thought had occurred before sitting in front of the Select Committee. However there are some jarring inconsistencies of thought occurring that are troubling if we are to take the rhetoric seriously.


The first point of contention comes with the notion of the dowry itself. What exactly will NHS England be funding with this dowry? If the care plans are accurately assessed then the needs of the individual receiving the care package have to be statutorily met. So will any such dowries be providing additional non-statutory needs or is this an implicit admission that the funding streams of CCGs/LAs are not sufficient to provide statutory needs? Is this about the needs of the service user or the needs of service funders?

Then there is the usage of years institutionalised to determine whether the individual requires a dowry as oppose to those expected to be pick-up by CCG/LA spending. How exactly will NHS England determine the qualification for this dowry? Will it focus on enablement? A problem with this is that there doesn't appear to be any evidence for that particular cohort being any more requiring of deinstitutionalisation than those who are there for six months or three years. This isn't person-centred policy based on needs but rather an arbitrary qualification of time that seems to have been plucked out of the air. I can't help but think of Mark Neary's excellent blog and that one of the consequences of his son Steven having spent a year in an ATU has been the need to permission-seek for actions such as going to the toilet as a result of his previous institutionisation.

These questions are particularly important in terms of the concept pursued by the members of the Select Committee of "the money following the patient" (NB for the Select Committee - they are people who aren't ill just because they have LD/ASD). In this context, the dowry concept seems less about facilitating this concept as blocking it. My cynicism would suggest that Simon and his colleagues should be viewing this issue as an efficiency opportunity for NHS England. That isn't a bad motivator in itself as it is more likely to see some change forced through. But for that motivator to work, the incentive needs to be that NHS England retains a sizeable proportion of the spending or in other words ensuring the money doesn't follow the individual. The dowry concept with its years incarcerated qualifier would allow NHS England to retain 80% of its spending. But as I said, I'm cynical.

Indeed with the challenge that Simon Stevens has set NHS England of finding £20bn of efficiency savings and our current cohort of politicians indulging in magical thinking as to bringing together two underfunded services (Health and Social Care) and expecting them to find that their deficit funding disappears, its no wonder that throwing a bone such as dowries occurs.

So I have questions for the Select Committee - what exactly are you attempting to achieve by this notion of "the money following the patient"? What exactly are you funding with it and for what purpose? What does fairness look like to you in this context?

Perhaps I'm being unreasonable to the Public Accounts Committee here but there doesn't appear to be much awareness of how the funding creates action or resistence. Simon Stevens is clearly telling the Select Committee in the answer quoted above that he needs to retain a significant proportion or there isn't the incentive to create change. Hence the discombobulation when Austin Mitchell followed up with the "so you think the funding is fair?" question. Fairness to the individual was the last thing on Simon's mind.

Yet I think Simon has a reasonable argument here given the financial pressures NHS England are under and that if keeping a significant proportion of the spend to allocate elsewhere sees the majority of ATUs shut down then that is a compromise worth making.

What I would advise Margaret Hodge and her colleagues on the PAC is to focus on a more holistic approach to achieving the goals of reducing institutionalisation. Abandon the money following the individual approach and instead split the money being spent on this cohort in three ways: a transitional fund to help CCGs/LAs budgets when any individual moves into the community (this can be graduated for need); developing more community-based specialist mental health services; allowing NHS England to redistribute the remaining savings. The precise proportionality can be debated but lets create incentives to move people into the community and support them when they are there.

The statutory responsibilities on CCGs and LAs to provide care and support  need to be funded properly in themselves. This is where the direction of travel re merging health and social care provision needs to be discussed with honesty rather than magical thinking. Just grabbing part of NHS England's budget as Margaret Hodge suggested to Simon Stevens is also counter-productive as it creates resistence and most likely perverse outcomes. The environment of health and social care post May 7th will be a very contested space regardless of what sort of government emerges.

The need for more thinking about what outcomes you want to achieve and less glib statements that sound good is necessary more than ever. Trouble is I think it will be a long long time before it happens. Perhaps that why this song is in my head this morning.