By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

EXCLUSIVE: MPs to probe policy of health budget underspending

The chair of the health select committee has warned that there could be a “significant danger of perverse incentives” if the health service remains unable to carry over unspent funds from one financial year to the next.

Stephen Dorrell spoke after the committee received written evidence from the Department of Health confirming HSJ’s report that the department had returned nearly £3bn of unspent funds to the Treasury over the past two years.

He added that the committee would now want to “reflect on” whether the DH’s practice of consistently under-spending its budget remained appropriate at a time when health funding was so constrained. The committee is set to publish a report on public expenditure later this month.

“The question that the committee will want to revisit is whether this practice that has grown up of aiming for underspends continues to be appropriate in the current spending environment,” Mr Dorrell told HSJ. “No one is in favour of uncontrolled spending, but within a tight budget the [NHS] Commissioning Board ought to have the freedom to flex its agreed budget in a way that reflects best value and good quality.”

He added: “There is clearly a significant danger of perverse incentives and a risk that authorities will feel a requirement to spend up against an end of year deadline, if they feel that the money is otherwise going to be lost to the health service.

“If that were to be the result it would be a very undesirable outcome… I think that’s something that needs to be revisited, and we will look at it in the context of this report.”

In October 2012, HSJ reported that the department had returned around £2.9bn of its funding for 2010-11 and 2011-12 to the Treasury, despite facing its tightest financial settlement for five decades.

The following month, NHS chief executive Sir David Nicholson and his deputy David Flory were questioned about the story at a hearing of the health committee.

Mr Flory told the committee that although the “headline was a very powerful one of money going back to the Treasury”, a “large part of the number was underspend of capital monies associated with particular projects in the department” which hadn’t progressed at the speed anticipated.

He added that capital monies of that kind were “one-off by their very nature” and could not be used to “support on-going investment in staffing”.

However, the committee asked the department to provide a full written account of its underspend in each of the past two years, showing how much of that underspend the department had been able to carry forward for future spending.

The department’s response, seen by HSJ, confirms that it underspent by a total of £3.2bn over the two-year period. The only part of this underspend it describes as being carried over for future spending is the £316m which, as HSJ previously reported, was transferred from 2011-12 to 2012-13 under the Treasury’s budget exchange scheme.

And despite Mr Flory’s comments, the response also confirms that the majority of the underspend in each year was from the department’s revenue budget, not its capital budget.

Capital underspends made up just £700m of the department’s £1.8bn underspend in 2010-11, and just £600m of its £1.4bn underspend in 2011-12.

The response states that government departments have an “absolute requirement to manage expenditure within the financial controls set by HM Treasury”.

It adds: “For the Department of Health, this means that the net expenditure outturn of around 400 [NHS] organisations must be contained within revenue and capital expenditure limits.

“It is prudent to plan for a modest underspend to mitigate against unexpected cost pressures, whilst balancing at the same time against excessive underspends.”

It adds that given “the size and complexity of the department and the NHS” the department believes that an underspend of around 1.5 per cent is “consistent with an appropriate level of prudent financial management”.

Timeline

March 2012: Figures published in Chancellor George Osborne’s 2012 Budget reveal that an estimated £500m of the Department of Health’s underspend for 2011 will not be rolled over for its use the following year.

October 2012: A Treasury spokesman confirms to HSJ that in fact around £1bn of the DH’s 2011-12 underspend was not rolled over for future spending. He adds that £1.9bn of the DH’s allocation for 2010-11 was also returned to the Treasury.

November 2012: Health select committee asks NHS chief executive David Nicholson and his deputy David Flory to provide a written account of exactly how much was underspent, from which budgets, and how much was rolled over.

December 2012: DH provides written evidence stating it had a £1.8bn underspend in 2010-11 and a £1.4bn underspend in 2011-12. It confirms that just £316m was carried over from 2011-12 underspend for use in 2012-13.

January 2013: HSJ reports that select committee is to “revisit” question of whether aiming for health underspends remains appropriate “in the current spending environment”.

Readers' comments (7)

  • Clearly, some new system is needed to prevent the panic spending of revenue budgets at the end of the financial year.
    I recall working for a trust that purchased 200 laptops in order to use up the IT budgets over half of which were still in their boxes unused a year later

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • This information just adds to the perversity of the decision not to review the allocation system.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • This really is an absolute no-brainer. We need to radically re-think financial processes; it's absolute madness for the NHS (and the public sector in general) to have to view every financial year as self-contained and self-standing. It results in:
    - significantly reduced capacity to develop QIPP, finance and service redesign proposals that spean several years
    - mis-allocation of end of year funds on spending which is easy to achieve but not really top priority, such as IT equipment

    It will frightent the hell out of Treasury and reduce their control, but this is something we've got to look at.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Bring back RAB!

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Surely it is not being suggested that David Nicholson and his team may be subordinate to Parliament! Since when did he have to account to them. The Treasury surely cannot be accountable to Parliament. Outrageous and almost democratic indeed! When they vote a sum of money for the NHS he (David) may simply decide not to spend it and friends in the Treasury will be very pleased with him.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Further to 3:13 the proper process would be for Parliament to reduce the vote if circumstances dictate, and this would be open and democratic.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • I worked in the NHS for 36 years. The annual financial system was a nightmare which occupied many many hours of management time in trying to make the best of an unworkable system - time that could have been much better spent on productive activities. The capital budget was the worst - approval of bids often came too late to purchase the item in question leading to either an underspend or panic buying of lower priority items which could be obtained in the time available. Eventually spending was so tight that my centre was allowed to submit bids for no more than 5 capital items per annum, regardless of the true need. Colleagues who had worked in the private sector could not believe the financial rules that they had to operate under and were clear that the private sector could not function with these arrangements.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

Share this



Related images

Related Jobs

Sign in to see the latest jobs relevant to you!

Sign up to get the latest health policy news direct to your inbox