Date post: | 18-Jan-2015 |
Category: |
Health & Medicine |
Upload: | nuffield-trust |
View: | 431 times |
Download: | 3 times |
© Nuffield Trust
Annual Health Strategy Summit
Managing financial risk in the NHS
March 2011 Twitter: #NTSummit
Jennifer Dixon (with thanks to Sian Davies)Nuffield Trust
© Nuffield Trust
PresentationConceptsHealth and Social Care BillInsurance riskPerson-based resource allocation
© Nuffield Trust
© Nuffield Trust
Financial risk: concepts
• Risk of a unit overspending due to circumstances beyond its control
• Insurance risk• Provider risk
• Ex ante risk management• Ex post risk management
March 2011
© Nuffield Trust
Health and Social Care Bill: Insurance risk
• SoS specifies resources to NHS CB in annual mandate• NHS CB allocates resources to consortia• NHS CB commissions specialised services for rare
conditions (SoS decides)• NHS CB and consortia can set jointly or each up a pooled
fund• NHS CB can set up a contingency fund• NHS CB can provide financial assistance• NHS CB specifies matters in standard commissioning
contracts• NHS CB sets structure of pricing• NHS CB can set up a failure regime for consortia
© Nuffield Trust
Health and Social Care Bill: Provider (FT) risk; designated services
• Monitor sets prices• Monitor: core function of setting up a ‘special
administration regime’ in event of provider failure to preserve ‘designated services’
• Commissioners apply for a service to be ‘designated’ (Monitor provides guidance on criteria)
• Monitor can impose additional licence conditions on the designated.
• Can be local modifications of prices for designated services
• Corporate insolvency procedures (undesignated services)• Special administration regime (designated)
March 2011
© Nuffield Trust
Health and Social Care Bill: Provider (FT) risk
• Financial assistance for failing FTs providing designated services could be through:- providers and commissioners being required to set up a
risk pool (powers by Monitor to require commissioners or providers to pay a levy)
- providers being required to purchase their own insurance to cover liabilities as specified by Monitor.
• Taxpayer investment in FTs managed through operationally independent banking function.
March 2011
© Nuffield Trust
Risk map: undesignated services
NHS CB
PCT clusters
Consortia
Practices
Patients
FTs
Practices
Insurance Provider
© Nuffield Trust
Risk map: designated services
NHS CB
PCT clusters
Consortia
Practices
Patients
Monitor
FTs
Practices
Insurance Provider
© Nuffield Trust
Insurance risk
March 2011 © Nuffield Trust
© Nuffield Trust
Insurance risk: strategies
Risk bearing Risk sharing Transferring risk
Source: Ryan, J. Bruce, Healthcare Financial Management 07350732, Jan97, Vol. 51, Issue 1
© Nuffield Trust
Insurance risk: some strategies (ex ante)
Risk bearing
Increasing the risk pool
Spreading risk across
years
Self insurance
Risk sharing
Joining others’ risk
pools
Alliance contracts
Transferring risk
To providers
To other insurance
entity
© Nuffield Trust
Insurance risk: some strategies (ex ante)
Risk bearing
Increasing the risk pool
Spreading risk across
years
Self insurance
Risk sharing
Joining others’ risk
pools
Alliance contracts
Transferring risk
To providers
To other insurance
entity
© Nuffield Trust
Person-based resource allocationPBRA
© Nuffield Trust
© Nuffield Trust
Policy context
• NHS Commissioning Board responsible for allocations to GP consortia
• Cover: secondary care, prescribing, community health services• Allocations based on aggregating up practice level budgets
(allows practices to move between consortia)• First allocations to be made for 2013/14• Shadow allocations in 2012/13
14
© Nuffield Trust
Person-based resource allocation
• To develop a person-based formula for resource allocation to practices for commissioning
• To promote equity of access for equal need
• Provide advice on risk sharing
March 2011
© Nuffield Trust
ExpenditureiNeeds i supplyaNeedsa Other variablesa, , ,( (f
Basic model
© Nuffield Trust
Explanatory variables Prediction variable
2007/08 2009/102008/09
Data
© Nuffield Trust
PBRA model: actual to predicted costs, 2007/8
Table 4 Actual compared to predicted cost for the basic set of models, predicting costs for 2007/08 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model Set of variables Validation sample 2 Individuals=5,445,559 Practices=797 -------------------------------- -------------------------------- Percentage of practices where (actual-predicted)/predicted cost -------------------------------- -------------------------------- -10<%<0 -5<%<0 -3<%<0 0<%<3 0<%<5 0<%<10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Model 1: age and gender 21 10 5 7 12 21 Model 2: age and gender morbidity markers 26 14 8 8 14 25 Model 3: age and gender morbidity markers 152 PCT dummies 34 16 11 11 18 31 Model 4: age and gender morbidity markers 152 PCT dummies 135 attributed needs & 63 supply 37 22 13 12 19 31 Model 5 age and gender morbidity markers 152 PCT dummies 7 attributed needs & 3 supply 35 19 11 12 19 33
© Nuffield Trust0.0000
0.5000
1.0000
1.5000
2.0000
2.5000
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Comparison Observed and Expected Costs at Practice level
List size
© Nuffield Trust
Risk sharing
Measures include: (actual-predicted)/predicted cost
Size of practice/group of practices/consortia
Various ‘risk’ arrangements:• Service ‘carve outs’ eg specialised commissioning• Per capita limit per annum (stop loss)• Extended ‘break even’ period
© Nuffield Trust
Approach: Pseudo-Monte Carlo simulation
• Dataset of 10million patients with all relevant information to predict expenditures (for 2006/07) using
Nuffield model
• Randomly sample from dataset repeatedly for a given GP consortium size to assess risk:
• Example
• start with GP consortium of size = 10,000
• Sample 10,000 from the available 10m
• Generate the model predicted level of expenditure for each individual
• Compare predicted expenditure to known actual expenditure
• Compute difference (risk) at individual level and at aggregate consortium level
• Repeat above for different sizes of consortia from 10,000 to 500,000 in increments of 10,000
• Summarise results - done graphically
• Can repeat for different assumptions about composition of consortia and/or risk sharing arrangements
© Nuffield Trust
Sampled from patients (10m) within a 20% random sample of all patients100 replications for each consortium sizeConsortium size increased in units of 10,000
-40
-20
020
40C
onso
rtium
risk
per
cap
ita(£
)
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000Consortium list size
Average risk Lower CIUpper CI
Simulations from all dataRisk smoothed over time - predicted versus actual expenditure
Consortia risk profile
Upper 95% C.I.
Lower 95% C.I.
Average risk
© Nuffield Trust
-40
-20
020
40C
onso
rtium
risk
per
cap
ita(£
)
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000Consortium list size
Average risk Lower CIUpper CI
Simulations from all dataRisk smoothed over time - predicted versus actual expenditure
Consortia risk profile
Upper 95% C.I.
Lower 95% C.I.
Average risk
© Nuffield Trust
-40
-20
020
40Co
nsor
tium
risk p
er ca
pita(
£)
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000Consortium list size
Average risk Lower CIUpper CI
Simulations from all dataRisk smoothed over time - predicted versus actual expenditure
Consortia risk profile
14
-13.5
Upper 95% C.I.
Lower 95% C.I.
Average risk
© Nuffield Trust
© Nuffield Trust
Sampled from patients (10m) within a 20% random sample of all patients100 replications for each consortium sizeConsortium size increased in units of 10,000
-40
-20
020
40C
onso
rtium
risk
per
cap
ita(£
)
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000Consortium list size
Average risk Lower CIUpper CI
Simulations from all dataRisk smoothed over time - predicted versus actual expenditure
Consortia risk profile
£4
£4
Upper 95% C.I.
Lower 95% C.I.
Average risk
© Nuffield Trust
Sampled from patients (10m) within a 20% random sample of all patients100 replications for each consortium sizeConsortium size increased in units of 10,000
-40
-20
020
40C
onso
rtium
risk
per
cap
ita(£
)
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000Consortium list size
Average risk Lower CIUpper CI
Simulations from all dataRisk smoothed over time - predicted versus actual expenditure
Consortia risk profile
£8
£8
Upper 95% C.I.
Lower 95% C.I.
Average risk
© Nuffield Trust
ConclusionComprehensive strategy to manage insurance risk needs developingRecent empirical advances in risk adjustment helpEx post risk management needs to be more explicit
© Nuffield Trust
© Nuffield Trust
Thank you
March 2011
www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk
Sign-up for our newsletter: www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/newsletter
Follow us on Twitter(http://twitter.com/NuffieldTrust)
© Nuffield Trust