Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Commissioning for health improvement following the 2012 health and social care reforms in England: what has changed?

Authors: E. W. Gadsby, S. Peckham, A. Coleman, D. Bramwell, N. Perkins, L. M. Jenkins

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The wide-ranging program of reforms brought about by the Health and Social Care Act (2012) in England fundamentally changed the operation of the public health system, moving responsibility for the commissioning and delivery of services from the National Health Service to locally elected councils and a new national public health agency. This paper explores the ways in which the reforms have altered public health commissioning.

Methods

We conducted multi-methods research over 33 months, incorporating national surveys of Directors of Public Health and local council elected members at two time-points, and in-depth case studies in five purposively selected geographical areas.

Results

Public health commissioning responsibilities have changed and become more fragmented, being split amongst a range of different organisations, most of which were newly created in 2013. There is much change in the way public health commissioning is done, in who is doing it, and in what is commissioned, since the reforms. There is wider consultation on decisions in the local council setting than in the NHS, and elected members now have a strong influence on public health prioritisation. There is more (and different) scrutiny being applied to public health contracts, and most councils have embarked on wide-ranging changes to the health improvement services they commission. Public health money is being used in different ways as councils are adapting to increasing financial constraint.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that, while some of the intended opportunities to improve population health and create a more joined-up system with clearer leadership have been achieved, fragmentation, dispersed decision-making and uncertainties regarding funding remain significant challenges. There have been profound changes in commissioning processes, with consequences for what health improvement services are ultimately commissioned. Time (and further research) will tell if any of these changes lead to improved population health outcomes and reduced health inequalities, but many of the opportunities brought about by the reforms are threatened by the continued flux in the system.
Footnotes
1
The Duty of Best Value makes clear that councils should consider overall value – including social value – when considering service provision. Under the general Duty of Best Value, local authorities should “make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness” https://​www.​gov.​uk/​government/​publications/​best-value-statutory-guidance--4.​
 
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Department of Health. Healthy lives, healthy people: our strategy for public health in England. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 2010.
4.
Rechel B, McKee M, editors. Facets of public health in Europe. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policy Series. 2014.
5.
6.
Marks L, Cave S, Hunter D, Mason J, Peckham S, Wallace A. Governance for health and wellbeing in the English NHS. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011;16 suppl 1:14–21.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Department of Health. Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS (cm 7881). London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 2010.
8.
Marks L, Cave S, Hunter DJ. Public health governance: views of key stakeholders. Public Health. 2010;124(1):55–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Department for Communities and Local Government. A plain English guide to the Localism Act. London: DCLG Publications; 2011.
10.
Coleman A, Checkland K, Segar J, McDermott I, Harrison S, Peckham S. Joining it up? Health and Wellbeing Boards in English Local Governance: Evidence from clinical commissioning groups and shadow health and wellbeing boards. Local Gov Stud. 2014;40(4):560–80.CrossRef
11.
12.
13.
14.
Turnbull S. Bricolage as an alternative approach to human resource development theory building. Hum Resour Dev Rev. 2002;1(1):111–28.CrossRef
15.
Bryant C, Jary D, editors. Giddens’s theory of structuration: a critical approach. London: Routledge; 1991.
16.
17.
Department of Health. Developing a specification for lifestyle weight management services. Best practice guidance for tier 2 services. London: Department of Health; 2013.
18.
NICE. Obesity: Identification, assessment and management. Guidelines CG189. 2014.
19.
Public Health England. National mapping of weight management services. Provision of tier 2 and tier 3 services in England. London: Public Health England; 2015.
20.
Hughes C. The rewards and challenges of setting up a tier 3 adult weight management service in primary care. Br J Obes. 2015;1(1):1–40.
21.
22.
Pavolini E, Guillén A, editors. Health care systems in Europe under austerity: Institutional reforms and performance. UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013.
23.
Gorsky M, Lock K, Hogarth S. Public health and England local government: historical perspectives on the impact of ‘returning home’. J Public Health. 2014;36(4):546–51.CrossRef
24.
Mosca I. Is decentralisation the real solution? A three country study. Health Policy. 2006;77(1):113–20.CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
Peckham S, Exworthy M, Powell M, Greener I. Decentralisation, centralisation and devolution in publicly funded health services: Decentralisation as an organisational model for health care in England. Report for the national co-ordinating centre for NHS service delivery and organisation R & D (NCCSDO). UK: NCCSDO; 2005.
27.
Dowling B, Sheaff R, Pickard S. Governance structures and accountability in primary care. Public Money Manage. 2008;28(4):215–22.CrossRef
28.
Bovaird T. The ins and outs of outsourcing and insourcing: What have we learnt from the past 30 years? Public Money Manage. 2016;36(1):67–74.CrossRef
29.
Schehrer S, Sexton S. Involving users in commissioning local services. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 2010.
30.
Royal Society for Public Health. The RSPH guide to commissioning for health improvement. 2014.
31.
32.
Pugh M. Centralism versus localism? Democracy versus efficiency? The perennial challenges of Scottish local government organisation. History and Policy. 2014.
33.
Collins C, Green A. Decentralization and primary health care: Some negative implications in developing countries. Int J Health Serv. 1994;24(3):459–75.CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
36.
Department of Health. Local authority public health grant allocations 2015/16. Government response to public consultation on in-year savings and equality and health inequality analysis. London: Department of Health; 2015.
37.
38.
World Health Organisation. The World Health Report 2000. Health systems: improving performance. Geneva: WHO; 2000.
39.
Local Government Association, Public Health England. Public health transformation nine months on: bedding in and reaching out. London: LGA; 2014.
40.
Local Government Association. Public health transformation twenty months on: Adding value to tackle local health needs. London: LGA; 2015.
41.
Local Government Association. Sexual health commissioning in local government. London: LGA; 2015.
42.
Local Government Association. Healthy weight, healthy futures: Local government action to tackle childhood obesity. London: LGA; 2016.
43.
World Health Organisation. The Ottawa charter for health promotion: First international conference on health promotion, Ottawa, 21 November. 1986.
Metadata
Title
Commissioning for health improvement following the 2012 health and social care reforms in England: what has changed?
Authors
E. W. Gadsby
S. Peckham
A. Coleman
D. Bramwell
N. Perkins
L. M. Jenkins
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4122-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Public Health 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Individual, social and environmental determinants of smokeless tobacco and betel quid use amongst adolescents of Karachi: a school-based cross-sectional survey

Research article

Spatial clustering of measles vaccination coverage among children in sub-Saharan Africa

Research article

Understanding the role of intersectoral convergence in the delivery of essential maternal and child nutrition interventions in Odisha, India: a qualitative study

Research article

Prevalence and geographic variation of abdominal obesity in 7- and 9-year-old children in Greece; World Health Organization Childhood Obesity Surveillance Initiative 2010

Research article

Health-endangering everyday settings and practices in a rural segregated Roma settlement in Slovakia: A descriptive summary from an exploratory longitudinal case study

Research article

Prevalence of intestinal parasitic infection and associated risk factors among village health volunteers in rural communities of southern Thailand