A majority of respondents to the Department of Health’s (DH) consultation on proposals for revising the objection mechanism to the pricing method disagreed to the proposals, branding it “too narrow in scope”.
The responses were mainly from commissioners and mental health providers, and 52% of respondents disagreed with the proposal, compared to 46% who agreed.
A majority of respondents to the Department of Health’s (DH) consultation on proposals for revising the objection mechanism to the pricing method disagreed to the proposals, branding it “too narrow in scope”.
The responses were mainly from commissioners and mental health providers, and 52% of respondents disagreed with the proposal, compared to 46% who agreed.
The DH said, in its response, “respondents thought that our focus on only making improvements to the objection mechanism was seen as too narrow in scope”.
There were calls for a wider review of the whole tariff process from development, through engagement to agreement.
“Many respondents offered alternative proposals, which ranged from: implementing multi-year tariffs; segment the objection process, eg, clarity what can be objected to more clearly; review the definition of ‘relevant provider’ to include mental health, community services and ambulance trust providers; and expand the scope of what can be objected to,” it read.
The multi-year tariff is now being taken forward, and Rob Webster, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said he was “pleased” and that it will “help the service to plan more effectively and allow local systems more space to work together.”
“We now have a chance with the creation of NHS Improvement to demonstrate a new approach – one where NHS England and NHS Improvement work with the service to develop, test and implement a tariff with the right balance of incentive and risk,” he added.
