149387 Improving the integration of health and social care in England during the last decade: Why prioritised? what effort? what obstacles? what achievement? what opportunity costs? what promise?

Tuesday, November 6, 2007: 9:15 AM

Bleddyn P. Davies, DPhil , PSSRU & Oxford Institute of Ageing, LSE & Universities of Kent and Oxford, England, Oxford, United Kingdom
The priority to ‘integrating' social into a broader health policy increased from 1997 in response to failures of agencies and field staff to coordinate and maximise overall benefits. How publicly commissioned/managed social care contributed to health policy goals became a principal performance criterion used to allocate important rewards and sanctions to local authorities, the local agencies responsible for performance of their social care systems. First the paper uses evidence from a before-after study to describe the benefit mix prior to the impact of the new prioritisation. It showed remarkable improvements in outcomes of value in their own right and clear relationships between services, risk factors and outcomes, but also failures of ‘integration' at field and agency levels suggesting under-performance for user groups. Secondly it considers Department of Health integration policies and models subsequently developed in their context of broader changes in health policy. Evidence suggests that earlier targeting of integration effort to reflect the likely costs and a wider range of benefits for user sub-groups and might have achieved more for patients and others. Thirdly it describes evidence about barriers that implementation encountered particularly in commissioning and providing agencies at management and field levels. Fourthly, it considers evidence about policy effects for structures, processes and outcomes. Fifthly, it considers evidence suggesting high opportunity costs ignored in health policy discourse driven by government, contrasting particularly analysis in the internationally innovative and sophisticated literature on the relationship between funding mechanisms, criteria for the evaluation of funding mechanisms and policy means and ends.

Learning Objectives:
- Understand evidence evaluating key integrative models and service and financing mechanisms in England - Understand what evidence shows about the development of integration of English health and social care policy for long-term care in a context with other health policy changes and pressure on public spending - Evidence-based analysis of the case presented by two discourses competing to influence the detail of policy for system development in English LTC: one almost entirely reflecting the main priorities of the English health policy paradigm alone, the other acknowledging the need for beneficial forms and degrees of integration but seeking to attach higher priority to the goals of the English social care paradigm - Understand the interdependence of research evidence, policy, politics, and system evolution in the English case

Keywords: Service Integration, Long-Term Care

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Any relevant financial relationships? No
Any institutionally-contracted trials related to this submission?

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.