News

Announcement: Change of Name, Centre for Health Enterprise

We are delighted to announce that City University has agreed our re-launch under a new title of Centre for Health Enterprise. This new name reflects the results of renewed commitment to unite business and health skills underpinning the strategy of both the School of Health Science and Cass Business School. The name reflects the urgent need to overcome the current compartmentalized approaches which separate health from social care and focus inwardly on systems and organisations to the detriment of individuals.

We want to stimulate a new openness which seeks the very best from each of the public, private and third sectors to create a new vision that focuses on promoting a sense of well-being and healthier lives. We want to progress the agenda beyond the usual gravitation towards another polarised debate about the NHS.

Dean Fathers, Director: "Despite succeeding in stimulating some important debates in our first two years, the name 'Centre for Better Managed Health and Social Care' too closely reflects the inertia we are trying to disrupt, whereas the 'Centre for Health Enterprise' reflects the flair and dynamism which must pervade the future health eco-system."

The Centre thrives on the diverse capabilities and experiences of the core team. Our re-launch under the new title gives us the opportunity to reemphasise the importance and cohesion of our focus on leadership, governance and whole systems thinking. We will continue seeking to unite relevant academic research with practical engagement, whilst embedding management science into education and training to create a credible platform on which to influence policy.

We are eager to work with like-spirits who value the challenge of learning from alternative perspectives and turning fresh concepts into reality.

Contact: Shivani Patel, email: Shivani.Patel.1@city.ac.uk

Dilnot Review

The Centre has made the following comment on the Dilnot review. If you would like to respond, please email our Head of Policy Rob Warwick Robert.Warwick.1@city.ac.uk.

The Publication of Andrew Dilnot's independent Commission on the Funding of Care and Support is to be welcomed. This has been a difficult task with few short term political benefits and raises issues that have, to date, been put into the "too difficult" pile. This may well colour the agenda and how the coalition will handle the debate. However, we hope that won't be the case - Dilnot raised too many important issues and does so in a way that offers pragmatic solutions not to be ignored.

Dilnot's report rightly points to a playing field that is both uneven and difficult to understand with the myth that the NHS will pick up the pieces if things go wrong.
So the agenda is clear:

• It provides clarity as to what is expected, from both the individual and state.
• With clarity will come confidence that will be needed for people to make appropriate provision for their old age.
• The call to both the individual and Government that the total spend will need to increase (over the next 20 years the percentage of GDP on this will rise from 1.2 - 1.9).

If achieved this should give us a care and support system that England can be proud of. However, to deliver, this equal attention must be placed on the providers. The clarity and confidence felt by the taxpayer and individual must be equally shared with the providers. Achieving this will be critical for long term funds and planning and to attract the best people to innovate for the future. This can best be achieved with an appropriate balance of safeguards and the freedom to develop new ways of providing care - a balance that we have yet to see.

Dr David Welbourn, from the Centre for Health Enterprise stated:
"The Government should be bold and seize the opportunity presented by this report to begin repositioning the relationship between each individual and the State, creating a better balance between rights and responsibilities in a transformed Big Society."

In the months to come it will be the debate on detail that will become important, for example:
• How the burden can be appropriately shared amongst the richest and poorest members of society and if a more graduated approach is needed, whether the form of means test will stifle incentives to save for old age.
• The practicalities of "metering" the different spells of care the individual will require throughout their life, and,
• The impact dementia and other illnesses will have on lengthening spells in care.

Decisions on the future will not be easy, for example the apparent contradiction between Dilnot and the current debate on the future of housing benefit raised by Iain Duncan Smith highlights the difficulties ahead. That said, appreciating this and accepting that pragmatism may be required will be a preferable alternative to ignoring the issue until it is too late.