IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/pubmmg/v35y2015i4p311-314.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New development: The remarkable insignificance of NHS England's CCG funding formula

Author

Listed:
  • Mervyn Stone

Abstract

This article resolves a long-standing question about the financial performance of small-area funding bodies in England's National Health Service--whether or not surpluses or deficits are due to over- or under-provision of funds relative to what is thought necessary to fund healthcare, in line with targets set by a funding formula. Multivariate regression of per capita surplus on the two variables (actual allocation and target allocation), for the first year of operation of 211 clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), revealed a decisively insignificant P-value for the target variable--once account had been taken of the distance of allocation from target. To help statisticians maintain that the target formula has no rational basis, this article conjectures that the correlation of surplus and 'distance from target' is a managerial artefact divorced from the costs of healthcare provision.

Suggested Citation

  • Mervyn Stone, 2015. "New development: The remarkable insignificance of NHS England's CCG funding formula," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 311-314, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:pubmmg:v:35:y:2015:i:4:p:311-314
    DOI: 10.1080/09540962.2015.1047277
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09540962.2015.1047277
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09540962.2015.1047277?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mervyn Stone, 2005. "Accumulating Evidence of Malfunctioning Contractual Government Machinery," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 82-86, April.
    2. Jane Galbraith & Mervyn Stone, 2011. "The abuse of regression in the National Health Service allocation formulae: response to the Department of Health's 2007 ‘resource allocation research paper’," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(3), pages 517-528, July.
    3. Mervyn Stone & Jane Galbraith, 2006. "How not to fund hospital and community health services in England," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(1), pages 143-164, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mervyn Stone, 2012. "Getting to grips with England's formula for local authority support," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(2), pages 145-152, March.
    2. Asada, Yukiko & Kephart, George & Hurley, Jeremiah & Yoshida, Yoko & Smith, Andrea & Bornstein, Stephen, 2012. "The role of proximity to death in need-based approaches to health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(3), pages 291-302.
    3. W. W. Cooper & Subhash C. Ray, 2008. "A response to M. Stone: ‘How not to measure the efficiency of public services (and how one might)’," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(2), pages 433-448, April.
    4. Mervyn Stone & Jane Galbraith, 2006. "How not to fund hospital and community health services in England," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(1), pages 143-164, January.
    5. Rob Ball & David Eiser & David King, 2015. "Assessing Relative Spending Needs of Devolved Government: The Case of Healthcare Spending in the UK," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(2), pages 323-336, February.
    6. Vallejo-Torres, Laura & Morris, Stephen & Carr-Hill, Roy & Dixon, Paul & Law, Malcom & Rice, Nigel & Sutton, Matthew, 2009. "Can regional resource shares be based only on prevalence data? An empirical investigation of the proportionality assumption," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 1634-1642, December.
    7. Asthana, Sheena & Gibson, Alex, 2011. "Setting health care capitations through diagnosis-based risk adjustment: A suitable model for the English NHS?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 133-139, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:pubmmg:v:35:y:2015:i:4:p:311-314. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPMM20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.