Sutton CCG will get less money for healthcare running costs per head than Sutton and Merton PCT

Sutton CCG will get less money for healthcare running costs per head than Sutton and Merton PCT Sutton CCG will get less money for healthcare running costs per head than Sutton and Merton PCT

The amount of money health bosses have to spend per head on running costs in Sutton is being reduced.

In April Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust (PCT) will be abolished and Sutton will get its own group of GPs and healthcare professionals known as the Sutton CCG who will take over the commissioning of services.

At the full council meeting on January 14 the designate chief clinical officer for Sutton CCG, Dr Chris Elliott, said: "Having a small budget - and £25 a head may sound like a lot - but actually compared to, I think it was £40 per head before, it makes me think how you are going to have to work differently to get things done."

He said they were developing good relationships with other the CCGs in the area and are already doing some joint work in areas such as mental health and safeguarding.

A spokesperson for Sutton CCG said: "This reflects the continued reduction in administrative running costs from £31.47 in 2011/12 to £25 per head for 2013/14. 

"This results from, in the main, reductions in the cost of back office functions - such as HR and Finance - as PCTs merged to share these functions and now with commissioning support units providing these functions to a number of CCGs.  

"Dr Elliot was giving an estimation of what previous running costs have been."

For more information about Sutton CCG visit: http://www.suttonccg.nhs.uk/page1.aspx?p=1

Comments(1)

Michael Pantlin says...
6:05am Tue 5 Feb 13

Come April when we have a CCG in place of the PCT will we at last be rid of the unpopular BSBV?

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree