Decision details

The appendix is NOT FOR PUBLICATION in accordance with paragraph (s) 3 of Schedule 12A of Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1972 in that it contains information relating to financial affairs of the Council, namely [commercially sensitive information detailing Officers approach to discussions with care providers]. The public interest test has been applied to the information contained within the exempt annex and it is considered that the need to retain the information as exempt outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.

The Cabinet Member:

1.    Approved an additional expenditure to the Adult Social Care market providers in 2020/21 to help with service sustainability.

2.    Delegated the implementation of service sustainability payments to the Corporate Director, People and Communities

In the absence of market intervention, care providers are more likely to face financial difficulties. The consequence of this is some care providers may exit the local market which has the twin effect of:

·         reducing service user choice, and

·         reducing commissioning buying power

Local authorities would see this in the following ways:

·         provider failure, trading cessation and care packages handbacks resulting in higher prices;

·         the use of premium cost alternative services will increase e.g. block provisions will revert to spot prices, and the use of residential if the homecare market is unable to absorb any capacity handed back;

·         the probing of alternative ways of recovering lost income through increase fee uplift requests;

·         the in-year effect of transition costs (cash, external specialist expertise and staff time) will be demanding and have an impact on already limited capacity; and

·         reliance and impact on the in house reablement service who will likely need to act as provider of last resort in bridging care. Redirecting this capacity will, in turn, impact on the cost savings generated through the delivery of reablement rather than bridging services.

Three options were considered:

1.    Do Nothing

This options was rejected on the basis the Adult social care market would be unsupported in dealing with the largest rise in the National Living Wage. This would inevitably lead to provider financial difficulties resulting in market sustainability issues.

2.    Delay for a further year – Rejected and why.

This options was rejected on the basis as Option 1. A delay in settlement would not improve market sustainability. It would also mean the investment made by PCC in the care sector this year would start to unwind.

3.    Negotiate a fee uplift package with the Adult social care providers.

This option is recommended. Through continued dialogues with regional colleagues we know the measures proposed are similar to those colleagues are using elsewhere. The differences are in the mix of tactics applied and the degree of use. Consequently the realistic options considered was to vary the levels of awards and settlement start dates across care sectors. This included recommending NIL increases to some care sectors.

None.