Dear Tim
We are fighting off a similar threat to amalgamate our
70,000 patient PCG with a neighbouring 60,000ish PCG
for the convenience of the Health Authority.
Well, the Criteria for Assessment are spelled out in
HSC 98/ 065. (The page with the ominous black box)
And HAs are
"required to provide evidence that all the criteria were
considered fully, and that the parties involved have reached
a consensus over the proposed configuration and accept the
proposal being put forward."
Also
"Health Authorities should notify Regional Offices of any parties
that disagree with the proposals ...."
If the Regional Office is not satisfied, the HA will be asked to
reconsider.
We are providing a lengthy document, listing each criteria specified
within HSC 98/ 065 and detailing how our group fulfils these
criteria. In the (unlikely - I hope) event that our HA refuses to
recognise our group, we shall be appealing to the Regional Office,
and, if necessary, beyond.
I am sure you have a copy of the relevant Criteria for Assessment in
HSC 98/ 065, but if not, it is available from the open gov Internet site
http://www.open.gov.uk/doh/coinh.htm
Of course it is not necessary for a doctor to be the IT expert for
a group ! Who dreamt that one up .... let me guess ....
.... the HA ? ;-)
Which region are you in? Trent region has issued a document which
states that configurations smaller than 50,000 and larger than 200,000
are not expected to meet the criteria (an imaginative interpretation of the
criteria without showing an regard for the actual wording!)
Over 70,000 and they don't seem too bothered.
Best wishes,
Ruth Livingstone
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
----------
From: [log in to unmask] on behalf of Tim Paine
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 07:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: PCG Configuration
We are currently assembling arguments to support our request to remain
'intact' as a homogeneous community of 50-70,000, rather than be
'swallowed up' by neighbouring - but very different - communities to
form what our HA believes would be a more cost-effective PCG of
160,000+.
Can anyone provide answers to the following?
1. In what ways were the smaller multifunds shown to be more
efficient/effective?
2. What *evidence* is there to support the notion of an 'unsafe' size of
PCG risk management-wise? Are there any relevant (horror) stories &/or
solutions from multifunds etc? Could a HA not have a contingency fund
with risk-capping for each PCG - as for standard FHPs?
3. What staffing is likely to be required to service PCGs of say
50,70,90,110K?
4. Is it really necessary for a PCG to have a *doctor* as its IT expert?
Wouldn't a non-medic au fait with the h/care scene be as good?
Any useful answers very gratefully received - Tim Paine.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
