Agenda item

The Panel had received, as part of the Agenda papers, performance information for Quarter 4 (January to March 2020) and the financial year end position for 2019/20.

The following main points were raised:

Performance

·         A Member queried why some data was missing from the performance statistics, specifically ASCOF 2a(i) and (ii) Admissions to Permanent Care per 100,000 and ASCOF 2d % people with no ongoing social care needs following reablement after hospital discharge.  The Director sought to investigate and report back

·         In response to a Members suggestion that delayed transfers of care  were slowly creeping up, the Assistant Director explained that as result of COVID-19 things were very different now, but there was a clearer understanding of the discharge pathways and work was underway to understand the reasons for the delays

Finance

·         The Panel questioned the value of looking at such historic data, to be informed that Q1 (April to June 2020) would be brought to the Panel in due course

·         Demand management was an area of close monitoring; however, Officers had not seen a significant increase in services such as assessment and services associated with discharge home from hospital with support

·         The Panel noted that cost pressures arising from a general increase in Care Home placements were being actively monitored

·         A Member asked about post COVID-19 funding for mental health services and domestic abuse and whether the demand for these services was likely to increase and the capacity in the system to support an increased demand in this area.  The Director explained that mental health services were commissioned by the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) in terms of meeting the clinical needs. It was likely that the Council’s statutory responsibility in this area would be delivered in a different way going forward albeit still working closely with health colleagues. At the present time the demand had not increased dramatically however, it was anticipated that the demand for mental health services for young people would increase. The Director agreed to investigate with Public Health colleagues about demand for domestic abuse support services and report back

·         The Director explained that the Council had received £28m from Government in 3 tranches to contribute towards its cost of response and recovery to COVID-19

·         In addition, the Council was working with the CCG and NHS England to recover additional costs in ensuring prompt and safe discharges from hospital to enable effective care and treatment through the whole system which the Council had to re-claim on a monthly basis. This funding had not yet been received but the reclaiming of it was in hand

·         Even though the Council had received the additional funding from Government, the Director explained that there would still be a shortfall in the budget (to be confirmed)

·         In relation to the ongoing threat of a COVID-19 second wave, there was uncertainty how this would be funded, but the situation in Worcestershire was akin to all Local Authorities.  To date, unlike some other Local Authorities, Worcestershire County Council had not needed to instigate an emergency in-year budget and was managing its Budget

·         The Head of Finance confirmed that from a S151 perspective, there was sufficient funding until the end of September and that the Council had received its 3^rd tranche of funding from Government.  It was less clear after this, as there was a number of unknowns

·         Members were reminded that the pandemic was still very active and unforeseen costs were to be expected, hence the requirement to closely monitor the financial position and if necessary, lobby central Government. 

·         It was noted that the year-end position of £1m overspend (0.8% of the net budget)

·         The improving position from Quarter 3 (£1.3m improvement) was mainly due to further use of the Public Health Ring Fenced Grant (PHRFG). The most significant variances from budget were: the increase in the number of care packages for older people and increase in their unit costs compared with budgeted forecast, the reduction in the numbers of clients within learning disabilities compared with budgeted forecast, the increase in the requirement for a bad debt provision and the increase in the use of the flexibilities within the PHRFG

·         The Director acknowledged a Members concern about the continued use of the PHRFG, as it was unknown when it may be withdrawn and couldn’t be relied upon and explained that all of the Directorate Plans had efficiencies within them and in addition to this there was some analysis being done on the use of the PHRFG. 

The Chairman summed up that is was pleasing that the Service was only £1m over budget especially in an area where costs can easily escalate, there was concern about  the impact of COVID-19 on the budget and the age related requirements but it was pleasing that the COVID-19 expenses were being handled centrally and that activity was being monitoring closely.