I don't think there is much to be gained from revisiting the previous discussion but I think the Department of Health may want to consider their response to The Times and BMJ findings.
There is little mileage in asking for evidence that there was a conflict of interest in the award of the contracts - let's just start with a presumption that there will be. But isn't the real test to be found in whether or not subsequent value for money is delivered? Therefore I would suggest the Department of Health adopt three policies:
- Create a benchmarking service which publicly shows the table of rates paid across the various CCGs;
- Place an obligation on providers to demonstrate how they provide on-going value for money, not unlike the previous local government Best Value for Money obligations;
- Place an obligation on CCGs to publish how they are performance managing their contracts to ensure the required quality of service is maintained, if not improved.