73rd Report - Financial sustainability of adult hospices in England

The government disagrees with developing and publishing a fully costed delivery plan alongside the (modern service) framework but that they should work with and take on board the views of the hospice sector as part of the development of the (modern service) framework.

The government disagrees, but states that it is working closely with Hospice UK, Marie Curie, Sue Ryder and Together for Short Lives to ensure the views of hospices are gathered and considered at every stage of the MSF development and will also consider high-potential innovation.

The government recognises that hospice collaboratives can play an important role but states it is not the place of the department or NHS England, to set out the working practices, or operating models, of independent organisations, such as hospices.

The government explicitly disagrees with the committee's recommendation regarding the lack of robust patient-level data from hospices. Its response focuses instead on guidance for ICBs on population health delivery models and the development of new payment models, without addressing the specific data collection or Faster Data Flows concerns.

The government explicitly rejects the recommendation to publish a fully costed delivery plan alongside the Modern Service Framework (MSF). While it will include a delivery plan as part of the MSF, it does not commit to it being fully costed.

The government disagrees with the committee's concerns, specifically rejecting the development and publication of a fully costed delivery plan alongside the Modern Service Framework (MSF). It states a delivery plan will be part of the MSF, focusing on effective and equitable use of existing resources without committing new funding.

The government explicitly disagrees with the committee's recommendation for faster action on new payment mechanisms, reiterating that these will be considered as part of the Modern Service Framework. They state it is not their role to make individual plans for independent hospices, but believe the MSF will aid long-term sustainability by moving away from existing funding models.

The government explicitly disagrees with the committee's observation regarding the additional services and broader contributions of independent hospices. However, the response details ongoing work with hospice charities, the development of the MSF to consider innovation and strategic commissioning, and substantial capital and revenue funding for the hospice sector, which implies an acknowledgement of their value.

The government explicitly disagrees with the committee's observation. However, it states it is working with the independent hospice sector, considering high-potential innovation within the Palliative Care and End-of-Life Care Modern Service Framework (MSF), and providing significant capital and revenue funding to hospices.

The government rejects an implied recommendation to intervene in or direct the working practices of hospice collaboratives, stating it's not their role to set the operating models for independent organisations. However, it will consider how to support and spread good practice for these models through the MSF.

The government explicitly disagrees with the recommendation to encourage or support hospice collaboratives, stating it is not their role to dictate practices for independent organisations. However, they recognise the importance of collaboratives, are considering how to support existing models and spread good practice through the MSF, and will identify and share examples nationally.