NHS underspends by £1.8bn

The NHS is heading for a record £1.8bn underspend this financial year, HSJ can reveal.

The total surplus will be almost 2 per cent of the NHS budget. It is understood to be causing embarrassment at the Department of Health amid concerns that it will be accused of presiding over a 'bust and boom' health economy, coming just two years after the NHS was more than £500m in the red.

Part of the massive surplus is made up of £729m 'topsliced' from primary care trust allocations by strategic health authorities, according to figures placed in the House of Commons library.

"A £1.8bn projected underspend for this financial year would be more than three times the £510m underspend for 2006-07"


An inspection of board documents by HSJ shows that, by September this year, the SHAs were forecasting an annual underspend of £1.5bn in total (see table below).

But since then SHAs are thought to have identified a further £300m in surpluses.

An underspend of this size at this time is particularly difficult for the DoH as it recently told the NHS pay review body that staff should get pay rises next year of no more than 2 per cent.

A senior source close to the DoH told HSJ: 'It doesn't look good. The £1.8bn net surplus is a conservative estimate. There will be a lot of pressure on SHAs over the next few weeks to manage the situation closely and to bring the underspend down.'

NHS Confederation policy director Nigel Edwards said: 'There's a lot of anxiety that these overspends will now be clawed back. In some cases PCTs have run up surpluses to fulfil strategic plans but there are now a number of rumours that the Treasury will claw these back.'

A £1.8bn projected underspend for this financial year would be more than three times the £510m underspend for 2006-07. That followed a £547m overspend in 2005-06. King's Fund chief economist John Appleby said: 'An underspend by that amount will be seen as just as bad as an overspend. Parliament does not approve of large NHS underspends as it commits those resources for health spending, not to just sit there.'

But David Stout, director of the NHS Confederation PCT Network, was more sympathetic. It was useful for NHS organisations to underspend, especially given the slow-down in resources, he said.

'There's never been an agreed figure for the underspend. The DoH has asked SHAs to manage the situation quite closely. It will be sensitive about too big an underspend having taken severe measures last year and there's a public expectation that the NHS will land the jumbo jet on the postage stamp and get a precise figure each year.'

Speaking at the King's Fund last week - before the size of the underspend was revealed - NHS chief executive David Nicholson said it was important that NHS organisations made a surplus in order to support financial planning and service development.

However, he added: 'We don't want to go from bust to boom or for people to use the surplus to avoid making difficult decisions.'

A senior source at one SHA told HSJ it had experienced problems persuading PCTs to spend more money. 'PCTs have been in turnaround mode for two years. We keep telling them there must be more things they can spend their money on but they are being too careful.'

He said it was particularly frustrating as PCTs had more work to do to reach the 18-week target, yet were hesitant to commit more funds to achieve it.

Projected surpluses

SHA

Topsliced from PCTs

Total predicted surplus
London £268m £135m
Yorkshire and the Humber £85m £280m
West Midlands £74m £102m
South Central £68m £80m
South East Coast £58m £60m
East of England £57m £46m
South West £46m £149m
East Midlands £38m £114m
North East £26m £142m
North West £9m £350m
Totals £729m*£1,458m

Sources: House of Commons library Nov 07 (topslices); SHA board papers, Sept-Nov 2007

*Based on data to September, estimates since risen

To read a response to this article, click here


Please note: In order to post a response you need to be registered on the site. You can register here.

Reader Response

The NHS deficit that “was yesterday” and is “gone today” has increased health inequalities and ruined the careers and lives of health professionals.

As part of reorganization to address its financial deficit, Enfield PCT dismissed public health staff, including a consultant. Enfield’s reduced capacity is now inadequate to address the health problems of its local population. Also, former staff, (doctors and nurses), have been left jobless- facing the stress and illness associated with redundancy, especially when it occurs late in a career.

When NHS reforms lead to such outcomes why should any one believe that politicians and managers understand the need of NHS patients and staff?

It's a pretty basic fact that you can't plan properly without plannig for a surplus (even a small one). Any organisation will tell you that. When the NHS didn't plan for a surplus, it hugely overspent as a result - because things happen during the year that you can't predict and if you don't build in flexibility, you are going to have problems.

And by the way it's pretty difficult to argue that the huge amounts of money spent on public and patient involvement really gave value for money (however busy it kept people who like sitting on committees).

I think this story is disgusting, many staff have lost their jobs, trusts are being recongured and in our kneck of the wood we were told that we cant have a new build?! I want to know what is going to be done about it. Taking it one step further what about the patients who have not hade the care they need because of the cut backs. I say let the punishment fit the crime

The NHS is heading for a underspend of £1.8bn that's odd. In March 2008 the D of H is abolishing Patient & Public Involvement in Health Forums (Service users voice), why because the forums cost to much too run...it seems not when the the NHS is underspent. Now there going to replace them with LINks (Local Involvement Networks) and give money to Local Authority's to set them up, but the money is not safe so the council can spend it on anything they like. The patients, service users, carers and the public lost out if the local councils spend it elsewhere. The NHS could save more money if it removed of senior director who have not knowledge of the NHS and patients run it. - Patient Lead NHS.

Why is it such a struggle, at ward level to get funding for necessary equipment and improvements, let alone extra staff to care for acutely ill or confused, at risk patients if the NHS has these funds available?
Ward Mangers and senior nurses have to beg to get patient armchairs replaced, despite the infection control risk and justifying an extra nurse to care for an individual patient is like trying to get blood out of a stone! .

It's about time the Government allocated some funds directly to the front line staff in the NHS who work with patients face to face and can often see how cash shortage directly impacts on patient care and experience.

Absolute disgrace that we have had trusts making large numbers of staff and nurses redundant to achieve financial targets, whilst we witness obscene amounts of public monies paid out in redundancy payoffs! The new Strategic HA's are growing at a rapid rate( and cost) and will soon be a mirror image of what they replaced - yet they still remain in denial over the real NHS funding issues. Cautious PCT's are not the underlying reason for the surplus - it is the freeze on recruitment. The latter contributing to over-stressed and over worked staff - and subsequently a demoralised NHS workforce.

How about giving the money to local authorities whose budgets have been squeezed as a direct result of the PCTs' financial situation?

Why is it that the NHS needs to plan long term but doesn't work on long term budgets? An underspend should be balanced by an overspend in the long run. Isn't that what Gordon Brown does with his golden rule? If it's good enough for him then..

Although the numbers seem large (ITS MIILIONS) actually it represent only a few days spend. When was the last time you knew of anyone that budgeted any better?

Top slicing is also outrageous. If you come in underbudget while delivering your objectives then its time for applause. The following years budget is then worked out using the information on how money was saved and a new budget set based on requirements which could be higher or lower.

My previous PCT was extremely well managed financially and because of this they were top-sliced continually. They never really got it back because as soon as they did, they were topsliced yet again. All the beneficial service changes that could have been put in place were stopped. The population we were responsible for suffered because of deficits elsewhere. PCTs need guarantees that they will not be topsliced for at least a year and then they will feel able to spend what they rightfully should. That said I think the new NHS Chief Exec actually knows what he's doing so things will get better.

I'm a GP - but I find these figures obscene.
Projected surpluses
London £268m £135m
Yorkshire and the Humber £85m £280m
West Midlands £74m £102m
South West £46m £149m
East Midlands £38m £114m
North East £26m £142m
North West £9m £350m

*If* you accept that resources have been allocated to serve the needs of the population, weighted for deprivation, why on earth have the most deprived areas of the country ended with massive surpluses?
Why aren't the health needs of the population being addressed?
PS what's going on in London? PCTs providing care massively top-sliced - but surplus much less: why is there a surplus and where is the rest going?