iESE portal Fair Cost of Care
From: Richard Ayres <rayres@careengland.org.uk>
Sent: 07 July 2022 08:36
To: David Smallacombe <david.smallacombe@careandsupportwest.com>
Subject: Re: iESE portal Fair Cost of Care
David,
We have encouraged councils to use third parties so that data can be anonymised. So far 56 authorities are using third parties for iESE and we assume most if not all will be using the same for home care. It is a Local Authority decision whether they LA will see homes data or not or whether the scope of the third-party is to anonymise before sharing.
We know some are anonymising data, but it is not in our gift to require them to do so but we have advised it will increase engagement if they do so.
What I will say is that this is a cost collection exercise, and no revenue should be collected. The only sensitive data collected could be ROO and ROC and then, ROC is a cost line, not a profit line and ROO is a pre-tax, pre-dividend, pre-bad debt etc. profit number. A council will learn more from pulling company house data to understand profitability (which is publicly available) than they will learn from this exercise, so whilst I share your point and agree, we need to convince providers that they gain nothing from not participating in this exercise, they merely make it harder and less likely for the LA to draw down the funding to pay providers higher fees in the future.
If any provider has concerns, please connect them with me (ideally via a Teams meeting if there are many) and I will happily talk through their concerns and try to alleviate as many as possible and feedback to LAs and DHSC their position if appropriate – in confidence.
I fully accept this is not an ideal process, but bottom line, if they choose not to be involved, then that is their choice, but it will hinder the authority’s ability to secure future funding. The data collected is commercially sensitive, but it will be handled appropriately and will not be disclosed to other providers. The authorities must report what is submitted to government, and as such that will become the baseline for future funding decisions and future cost collection exercises. The data collected forms the FCC median value the LA needs to aim toward funding and government need to ultimately fund. This is not an exercise for an LA to cherry pick the lowest cost lines to target low fees. DHSC governance wont allow it.
Government is not going to provide the funding needed if we don’t provide the baseline data from a representative number of providers. The best way to ensure representation is to collect data from as many providers as possible.
I fully understand the concerns, but if the LAs are seeing the data, in theory they will make better decisions going forward. I accept the historic trust issue of former exercises, but this is a government led exercise and we have never undergone anything like this in the past, so we must try not to draw on experience as an excuse not to engage. LAs can’t change what is collected, they must report it and if they strip our or remove data, they have to explain to DHSC why this is the case. If DHSC do not agree the rationale, they need to revise their approach.
This is the start of a very long journey, and we must try not to fall at the first hurdle. I’m not naïve to think this is going to be easy, but we must look at this as the opportunity to start the change we’ve been lobbying for, for many years. There is no other opportunity, we’re either in it, or not in it, and if not, we will be “done to” rather than being part of the solution I’m afraid. In theory we asked for this, we were consulted (to a point) and we got something broadly alongside what we’ve been asking for, and now we need to support it or not support it. Not supporting it will leave us where we are.
I would welcome the chance to speak to providers who have worries or concerns to make the necessary representations of those concerns in confidence.
I’m here for providers, but it is not within my gift to mandate anonymity despite trying to encourage it where we can. I have a provision background; I’ve actively participated in many of these exercises over the years. I have nearly 30 years procurement experience so am poacher turned game keeper to a degree. This exercise seeks to create the best body of evidence we have ever had. If it is robust, we stand a much stronger chance of creating the change we want. If we have weak data, we will lose the battle.
Michelle Dyson said yesterday that Steve Barclay likes data, so let’s give him an undeniable dataset he can’t step away from
I hope that’s helpful. Let’s set up a call if you’d like to discuss further as I’m not sure email is the best vehicle for this conversation as its not interactive enough.
Richard