Integrated health and care systems in England : can they help prevent disease?

Objectives: Over the past 12 months, there has been increasing policy rhetoric regarding the role of the NHS in preventing disease and improving population health. In particular, the NHS Long Term Plan sees integrated care systems (ICSs) and sustainability and transformation partnerships (STPs) as routes to improving disease prevention. Here, we place current NHS England integrated care plans in their historical context and review evidence on the relationship between integrated care and prevention. We ask how the NHS Long Term Plan may help prevent disease and explore the role of the 2019 ICS and STP plans in delivering this change. Methods: We reviewed the evidence underlying the relationship between integrated care and disease prevention, and analysed 2016 STP plans for content relating to disease prevention and population health. Results: The evidence of more integrated care leading to better disease prevention is weak. Although nearly all 2016 STP plans included a prevention or population health strategy, fewer than half specified how they will work with local government public health teams, and there was incomplete coverage across plans about how they would meet NHS England prevention priorities. Plans broadly focused on individual-level approaches to disease prevention, with few describing interventions addressing social determinants of health. Conclusions: For ICSs and STPs to meaningfully prevent disease and improve population health, they need to look beyond their 2016 plans and fill the gaps in the Long Term Plan on social determinants

Cross-sector collaboration to reduce health inequalities: a qualitative study of local collaboration between health care, social services, and other sectors under health system reforms in England.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers across countries promote cross-sector collaboration as a route to improving health and health equity. In England, major health system reforms in 2022 established 42 integrated care systems (ICSs)-area-based partnerships between health care, social care, public health, and other sectors-to plan and coordinate local services. ICSs cover the whole of England and have been given explicit policy objectives to reduce health inequalities, alongside other national priorities. METHODS: We used qualitative methods to understand how local health care and social services organizations are collaborating to reduce health inequalities under England's reforms. We conducted in-depth interviews between August and December 2022-soon after the reforms were implemented-with 32 senior leaders from NHS, social care, public health, and community-based organizations in three ICSs experiencing high levels of socioeconomic deprivation. We used a framework based on international evidence on cross-sector collaboration to help analyse the data. RESULTS: Leaders described strong commitment to working together to reduce health inequalities, but faced a combination of conceptual, cultural, capacity, and other challenges in doing so. A mix of factors shaped local collaboration-from how national policy aims are defined and understood, to the resources and relationships among local organizations to deliver them. These factors interact and have varying influence. The national policy context played a dominant role in shaping local collaboration experiences-frequently making it harder not easier. Organizational restructuring to establish ICSs also caused major disruption, with unintended effects on the partnership working it aimed to promote. CONCLUSIONS: The major influences on cross-sector collaboration in England mirror key areas identified in international research, offering opportunities for learning between countries. But our data highlight the pervasive-frequently perverse-influence of national policy on local collaboration in England. National policymakers risked undermining their own reforms. Closer alignment between policy, process, and resources to reduce health inequalities is likely needed to avoid policy failure as ICSs evolve

The impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations and factors shaping how they work: a systematic review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers in many countries promote collaboration between health care organizations and other sectors as a route to improving population health. Local collaborations have been developed for decades. Yet little is known about the impact of cross-sector collaboration on health and health equity. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review of reviews to synthesize evidence on the health impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations, and to understand the factors affecting how these partnerships functioned. We searched four databases and included 36 studies (reviews) in our review. We extracted data from these studies and used Nvivo 12 to help categorize the data. We assessed risk of bias in the studies using standardized tools. We used a narrative approach to synthesizing and reporting the data. RESULTS: The 36 studies we reviewed included evidence on varying forms of collaboration in diverse contexts. Some studies included data on collaborations with broad population health goals, such as preventing disease and reducing health inequalities. Others focused on collaborations with a narrower focus, such as better integration between health care and social services. Overall, there is little convincing evidence to suggest that collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations improves health outcomes. Evidence of impact on health services is mixed. And evidence of impact on resource use and spending are limited and mixed. Despite this, many studies report on factors associated with better or worse collaboration. We grouped these into five domains: motivation and purpose, relationships and cultures, resources and capabilities, governance and leadership, and external factors. But data linking factors in these domains to collaboration outcomes is sparse. CONCLUSIONS: In theory, collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations might contribute to better population health. But we know little about which kinds of collaborations work, for whom, and in what contexts. The benefits of collaboration may be hard to deliver, hard to measure, and overestimated by policymakers. Ultimately, local collaborations should be understood within their macro-level political and economic context, and as one component within a wider system of factors and interventions interacting to shape population health

Integrating Social and Medical Care: Could it Worsen Health and Increase Inequity?

As a result of a large and compelling body of evidence documenting the impacts of social determinants, such as income and education, on health outcomes, health care systems are beginning to incorporate social and economic risk data into health care delivery decisions. But there is a risk that some of these efforts could worsen health and widen health inequities. We highlight 3 examples- including recent policy changes in Medicaid, social needs, informed risk prediction models, and advances in precision medicine-where the inclusion of social risk information threatens to reduce care quality or health care access for some groups of patients. A new dialog is needed about both the opportunities and potential consequences of bringing information about patients' social circumstances into a market-based health care system

Meanings and Misunderstandings: A Social Determinants of Health Lexicon for Health Care Systems

Policy Points Health care systems and policymakers in the United States increasingly use language related to social determinants of health in their strategies to improve health and control costs, but the terms used are often misunderstood, conflated, and confused. Greater clarity on key terms and the concepts underlying them could advance policies and practices related to social determinants of health-including by defining appropriate roles and limits of the health care sector in this multisector field

Solving poverty or tackling healthcare inequalities? Qualitative study exploring local interpretations of national policy on health inequalities under new NHS reforms in England

Objectives Major reforms to the organisation of the National Health Service (NHS) in England established 42 integrated care systems (ICSs) to plan and coordinate local services. The changes are based on the idea that cross-sector collaboration is needed to improve health and reduce health inequalities—and similar policy changes are happening elsewhere in the UK and internationally. We explored local interpretations of national policy objectives on reducing health inequalities among senior leaders working in three ICSs.Design We carried out qualitative research based on semistructured interviews with NHS, public health, social care and other leaders in three ICSs in England.Setting and participants We selected three ICSs with varied characteristics all experiencing high levels of socioeconomic deprivation. We conducted 32 in-depth interviews with senior leaders of NHS, local government and other organisations involved in the ICS’s work on health inequalities. Our interviewees comprised 17 leaders from NHS organisations and 15 leaders from other sectors.Results Local interpretations of national policy objectives on health inequalities varied, and local leaders had contrasting—sometimes conflicting—perceptions of the boundaries of ICS action on reducing health inequalities. Translating national objectives into local priorities was often a challenge, and clarity from national policy-makers was frequently perceived as limited or lacking. Across the three ICSs, local leaders worried that objectives on tackling health inequalities were being crowded out by other short-term policy priorities, such as reducing pressures on NHS hospitals. The behaviour of national policy-makers appeared to undermine their stated priorities to reduce health inequalities.Conclusions Varied and vague interpretations of NHS policy on health inequalities are not new, but lack of clarity among local health leaders brings major risks—including interventions being poorly targeted or inadvertently widening inequalities. Greater conceptual clarity is likely needed to guide ICS action in future

A cure for everything and nothing? Local partnerships for improving health in England.

The NHS in England is being reorganised under the Health and Care Act 2022—the biggest overhaul of NHS rules and structures in a decade. A key aim of the changes—introduced on 1 July 2022—is to encourage collaboration between NHS, local government, and other agencies to improve health and reduce health inequalities. England will be divided into 42 area based integrated care systems, bringing together NHS organisations, social care, public health, and others to plan and coordinate local services for populations of around 500 000 to three million people