A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 3 April 2019
The Court of Appeal has dismissed a challenge to the payment mechanism – the “Whole Population Annual Payment” (“WPAP”) - proposed by NHS England and NHS Improvement in the draft contract intended for use by Integrated Care Providers (formerly known as Accountable Care Organisations). In this article, we provide an outline of the Judgment and what it means for commissioners.
The Court found that "the Appellant's arguments on construction [were] misconceived and without merit". It therefore dismissed all seven of the Appellant's grounds of appeal and it held that the WPAP was lawful under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 ("the 2012 Act").
DAC Beachcroft partner Alistair Robertson and solicitor Jonathan Blunden acted for NHS England, the successful Respondent.
The appeal concerned the statutory construction of the pricing provisions of the 2012 Act and, relatedly, the National Tariff ("NT") made under those provisions.
The Appellant challenged Kerr J’s decision of 15 May 2018 dismissing her judicial review.
Before the Court of Appeal, the Appellant's "essential argument on construction" was as follows:
"(i) The only mechanism for variation of “the national price…specified in the national tariff” payable by commissioners for [health care service] HCS is the mechanism laid down under ss.124 and 125, namely “local modifications” (under s.115);
(ii) Agreements by way “local modifications” require prior approval by Monitor to be enforceable (s.125(3));
(iii) Price changes by way of “local modifications” would, in practice, only be subject to increase because of the requirement for Monitor to apply the “uneconomic” test (s.124(5)); and
(iv) There is no material distinction between “local variations” under s.116(2) and “local modifications” under ss.124-125; and
(v) Section 115(1) imposes a statutory duty on an NHS commissioner to pay the specified price".
The Court provided eleven reasons for rejecting the Appellant's argument and, in so doing, accepted the counter-argument of the Respondents (NHS England and Monitor) that the WPAP was lawful. We will not analyse each of those reasons within this article, but will instead focus on the key aspects of the Judgment.
1. The price payable under s.115 was not simply “the national price…specified in the national tariff” as the Appellant supposed. Instead:
"It is important to pay close regard to the full wording of s.115 .... Sub-section 115(1) provides in terms that the price payable is: “…such price as is determined [i] in accordance with the national tariff [ii] on the basis of the price (referred to in this Chapter as “the national price”) specified in the national tariff for that service” (subject to s.124 and s.125). All the words in the sub-section must be given meaning: the words “in accordance with the national tariff…” indicate that the price payable may differ from “the national price” by reason of the provisions of the NT itself". (para. 71)
2. The NT was "not simply a list of prices". It was an extensive and complex document of 120 pages which provides for prices to be varied nationally or locally, by “local variations” or “local modifications”. As the Respondents' argued, it was "baked in" to the NT that it contemplates variation.
3. Contrary to the Appellant's assertion, there are a "variety of ways in which the “national price” could be changed including by "local variations":
"Section 115(1) does not suggest there is only one method of departing from the “national price” as a result of applying the NT. On the contrary, s.115(1) refers broadly to determining the price “in accordance with the national tariff”. This covers any variation or modification permitted by the NT. The NT sets out in considerable detail the manner in which prices may be varied or modified".
4. The Appellant's argument that "local variations" under s.116(2) were the same as "local modifications" under ss.124/125 was incorrect: "it is plain that the two price adjustment mechanisms of “local variation” and “local modification” are quite separate and distinct" (para. 75).
5. The NT contemplates a wide variety of different “local variations” (including those based on “whole population budgets”).
6. By contrast, the “local modification” regime under ss.124-125 "allows adjustments to price only, and in the form of a price increase only, in circumstances where Monitor is satisfied that it is “uneconomic” for the provider to provide services at the price determined in accordance with the NT (i.e. “the national price” as nationally or locally varied)" (para. 79).
7. S.115 does not create a statutory duty which requires a commissioner to be liable to pay a provider “the price payable”, irrespective of what has been contractually agreed between them. This argument was incorrect and, in any event, was irrelevant (para. 82).
8. The Court rejected the Appellant's suggestion that the proposed WPAP scheme pays no regard to the principles which underpin NHS commissioning. The opposite was the case (para. 83).
For these reasons, the Court dismissed all seven of the Appellant's grounds of appeal. The Court determined that Kerr J had been right to hold that there is nothing unlawful about the proposed WPAP scheme.
The judgment (which can be found here) will be welcome news to commissioners who plan on using the ICP contract or variants of it. It confirms that the WPAP is lawful. The judgment also confirms that block payment mechanisms are not, in principle, unlawful under the 2012 Act.
Should the draft ICP Contract be made available for general use by commissioners, the judgment confirms that the WPAP is lawful under the 2012 Act. More generally, the judgment also confirms that, in principle, variants of the WPAP, including block payment mechanisms (which in 2017-18 accounted for some 37% of all NHS commissioning contracts (para. 44)), are lawful under the 2012 Act.
This is an important development for CCGs, particularly when considered alongside the recent publication of the Long-Term Plan which clearly outlines the vision for the whole of the country to be covered by ICPs (although now re-labelled Integrated Care Systems) by 2021. This Judgment confirms that CCGs will have flexibility in the contracting arrangements it may use to implement that visions, by using the ICP Contract should it be appropriate to do so.
London - Walbrook
+44 (0)20 7894 6125
+44 (0)20 7894 6020
Stuart Wallace, Mark Ashley, Hannah Volpe
Katherine Calder, Ed Williams, Grace Tebbutt
Mark Ashley, Ciaran Claffey
Katherine Calder, Joanne Dumphy, Ryan Jenkins
Paul McGough, Matthew Nichols, Helen Dandridge
Katherine Calder, Phoebe Baxter, Oliver Crich
Gill Weatherill, Anna Hart, Corinne Slingo
Beth Brown, Ceri Fuller
Hamza Drabu, Alistair Robertson, Soo Sing Patel
Peter Merchant, Robina Ewbank, Gemma Brannigan
Alison McAdams, Hamza Drabu, Olya Melnitchouk
Alison McAdams, Hamza Drabu, Darryn Hale
Emma-Jane Dalley, Hannah McElroy
Gill Weatherill, Sarah Woods, Helen Dandridge
Phoebe Baxter, Katherine Calder
Emily Senior, Sean Doherty, Heather Durston-Hillyer, David Roberts
Emma-Jane Dalley, Alistair Robertson, Anne-Marie Gregory, Rachael Kemp