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

Your browser seems to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser.


Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.


What that extra year for QIPP means

Does it matter that the Department of Health now claims that year dot for its quality, innovation, productivity and prevention programme - aka “saving up to £20bn” - is 2008-09, not 2010-11 as previously assumed and stated?

As the focus has always been on the absolute aggregate value of the final “money in the tin” - as Sir David Nicholson puts it - rather than on a comparative saving against a specified cost baseline. This means the shift is unlikely to alter the target figure. What it does seem to do is throw in an extra financial year’s efficiency savings - 2009-10’s - to score against the final “up to” target come 2015. And with a bit of luck and a fair wind, the apocryphal £3.7bn revenue surpluses accumulated since 2007-08 - promised back for the 2009-10 onwards period yet swiped back by the Treasury that year - will also be thrown into the pot. All in all, that extra year might massage out another £8bn-£9bn.

That is not to say the QIPP challenge has just been made any easier, however, as the Department of Health is feeling the uncomfortably hot breath of the National Audit Office down its neck. The watchdog’s ongoing review of QIPP, due to be published in the autumn, is expected to issue strong warnings on the vaguer extremities of so-called “non cashable” efficiency savings - such as those which rely on hard-to-quantify quality improvements and savings made by denying patients “low priority treatments”.

To make matters worse, those cheeky independent auditors have already been soliciting QIPP monitoring returns directly from NHS organisations, cruelly denying the DH and strategic health authorities the ability to cook the numbers - sorry, I mean “sense check” - to make the sums add up.

The upshot of that will likely be a tougher approach to what “counts” as a genuine saving, making the inclusion of an extra year a welcome, but only a very relative, reprieve.

The real implication, however, is what the nominal extra year means for the next £20bn or more, from 2015 onwards. For that, there will be no opportunity to chuck in an extra year, or massage in unallocated and therefore unspent surpluses. If this £20bn has been tough, the next one is going to be even more so.

Sally Gainsbury is a news reporter for the Financial Times,

Readers' comments (1)

  • Sally what do you mean when you say that the QIPP challenge hasn't been made any easier even though "the extra year might massage out an another £8-£9billion? That sounds like it got easier to me and surely that's why the DoH have made this announcement?
    In any case it is very difficult 'on the ground' to understand how these savings are actually being made up. As far as i can see it seems to be largely from DoH/SHA/PCT's holding back a large amount of money from the start, coupled with tariff deflation and then declaring surpluses. I'm not sure that's efficiency as commonly understood and one wonders if there is any plan B once this device runs dry?

    Unsuitable or offensive?

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

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