Skip to Content

Public Health Other (S08)

Cuts

Portfolio: System.Linq.Enumerable+WhereSelectArrayIterator`2[System.String,System.String]

Description

Wider determinants – Home Improvement Agency - £15,000, the contribution would cease, reducing the provision of services. The aim of the service is to provide an integrated housing support service, by providing a single point of contact and seamless co-ordination of services, in order to enable those in need of support to maintain their independence, health and wellbeing in their chosen home for as long as possible. This aim will be achieved by assisting Service Users through the repair, adaptation or improvement process, so that the Service User is able to remain in their own home in a warm, safe, secure and accessible environment.

Link 

S8 - Public Health Other 

Your Say

4 comment(s)

This table lists comments from the public about this proposal

Comment

Core HP6 (Public Health NHS Health Checks)
Core HP4 (Public Health Stop Smoking Service)
Core HP5 (Public Health Health Advice NHS Core Offer)
Core HP2 (Public Health 0-19 Years )
Cut S08 (Public Health Other)
Core HP1 (Public Health Sexual Health Services)
Core HP3 (Public Health Substance Misuse )
Core HP7 (Public Health Prescribing & Pharmacology)

This is in response to the current consultation on budget plans for Darlington Borough Council. I am writing on behalf of Public Health England, in our current capacity accounting for the appropriate use of the Public Health Ring Fenced Grant to Parliament. I am keen as the Centre Director for the North East Centre to offer support but also share some concerns regarding the potential impact of some of the proposals on the ability for Darlington Borough Council to meeting its Public Health obligations.
I recognise that councils are facing a further period of financial stringency, which includes a reduction in the size of the public health grant As a consequence, I fully accept that councils will need to closely inspect current and future spend and identify savings that can be made to remain within budget.
The Grant is given for the purposes of contributing to the council’s activities ensuring good public health outcomes for residents. We therefore expect any proposed savings to be informed by the JSNA, the local Health & Wellbeing Board’s priorities; an assessment of current performance; and the efficiency with which services and functions are currently delivered. It remains essential that the Grant is only spent on activities whose main or primary purpose is to improve the public health of local populations. The Director of Public Health will need to be in a position to sign a statement of assurance at the end of each financial year.
Given these expectations, I would like to register two specific concerns about the proposals for the prescribed public health services i.e. those that Councils are mandated to ensure provision for. There appear to be specific implications for sexual health and for the “core offer” to Clinical Commissioning Groups/NHS Advice.
The proposals for sexual health categorise sexual health services as part of the “Core Offer” of the Council. The proposals make very clear the responsibilities of the authority under the Act and, even for the remodelled service, retain open access to GUM services. However, to achieve the required efficiencies it is proposed that the service will be remodelled to be more targeted to those at greatest risk of early unintended pregnancy and poorer sexual health. It is specifically proposed that both the local trust contract and the out of area costs for GUM are reduced by 5%. It is unclear how this 5% reduction will be achieved for GUM whilst retaining the open access requirement for GUM and we would welcome clarification on this specific issue.
The proposals for the delivery of the “Core offer” to Clinical commissioning groups/NHS advice outline significant reductions to the available capacity and expertise to deliver this important function both directly within the team and that purchased from a shared public health service in Teesside. The proposals state that “The Director of Public Health will access highly specialised Public Health advice including Public Health Medicine, pharmaceutical, infection control and specialised epidemiology through procurement arrangements”. We would urge that the budget allowed for such procurement is sufficient and would welcome the opportunity to discuss in more detail the arrangements for this advice to be assured of future provision.

Core HP2 (Public Health 0-19 Years )
Cut S08 (Public Health Other)
Core HP1 (Public Health Sexual Health Services)
Cut Hu01 (Childrens Centres, Early Help and intervention - Specialist Family Support)
Cut S03 (Core offer and Tees Valley Public Health Shared Service)

CCG Letter of Response to MTFP

Documents


Cut S09 (Obesity Management)
Cut S10 (MARAC)
Cut S08 (Public Health Other)
Cut S07 (Sanctuary Scheme)
Cut S01 (Sexual Health services)

Reductions to Sexual Health and Contraception - Young people are the highest risk of STI’s Young people are the highest risk of pregnancy Young people are the most unlikely to access services Negative impact on 0-19 service and remaining service providers Sanctuary Scheme - Several of our most vulnerable families have worked with Sanctuary which has enabled them to remain in their homes. Disruption to family life Negative impact on emotional health and well-being Negative impact on schooling Negative impact on other services The health and well-being of children, young people and families is likely to be at risk of significant harm Public Health Other (S08)Home Improvement Agency - Significant impact on vulnerable families to fund own needs or go without. Reductions to Obesity funding - No services available to support obese children and families following NCMP screening. Proposals from DBC are unrealistic to vulnerable and hard to reach families Negative impact on 0-19 service to provide sustainable support. Negative impact on physical health of children, young people and families. Increased demand on remaining services. The future health and well-being of children and young people is likely to be at risk. Reductions to Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference - Added pressures to other remaining services. Children, young people and families in Darlington are likely to be at greater risk of harm

Cut S05 (Public Mental Health)
Cut S09 (Obesity Management)
Cut S10 (MARAC)
Cut S08 (Public Health Other)
Cut S07 (Sanctuary Scheme)
Cut S01 (Sexual Health services)

For me as a GP all of the proposed public health reductions will have a negative impact