Risk Share. 1.1 The Partners have agreed that they will each manage their own risks under this Agreement unless otherwise stated in this Schedule 4.
Risk Share. 3.1. If the contract value of the Commissioning Contract is a lower figure than set out in the table in paragraph 2 above then the contract value shall be reduced pro rata to the above figures subject to the ECC Financial Contribution not varying until all other Commissioners have benefitted from a 10% cost reduction of their Financial Contribution.
Risk Share. 4 Both the CCG and the Council agree that subject to any decision of the JSCB and the CCG Governing Body otherwise as to the treatment of any Overspend or Underspend in accordance with paragraphs 5 to 10 (inclusive) of this Schedule 3:
Risk Share. 11 Following the June 2017 Concordat, Luton committed resources to build a S75 Pooled Budget agreement for the future years. 12 As detailed in Appendix One (1), each spend line has a share profile attached to it which is either Fixed or Variable.
Risk Share. 2.1 The Partners agree to apportion the costs of s117 aftercare provision as follows: • Council: 68% • CCG: 32%
Risk Share. It is established practice that both partners manage their own risks and it is proposed that this be extended to the 2023/24 plan.
Risk Share. [INSERT HERE HOW THE RISK SHARE ARRANGEMENT WILL WORK: How the value will be calculated how much will be withheld how it will be determined what will be paid in What will happen to the risk share element once paid into the Pooled Fund Pooled Fund Management [INSERT PROCESS BY WHICH AN POTENTIAL OVERSPEND SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED, REPORTED AND ACTION TAKEN TO EITHER REMOVE RISK OR AGREE OVERSPEND] The Partners to consider whether this should be a general principle that any overspend will be determined by the Partnership Board in an equitable manner. Is there any principles behind how the overspend will be divided? If the Partnership Board identifies a poor management by a Lead Partner as a contributing factor to an overspend will that impact on the division of the overspend? What actions can the Partnership Board recommend/suggest? Some examples could include: agreeing an action plan to reduce expenditure; identifying underspends that can be vired from any other Fund maintained under this agreement or outside of this agreement asking for more money from the respective Partners; and if no more money is available agreeing a plan of action, which may include decommissioning all or any part of the Individual Service to which the Fund relates.
Risk Share. The Council and CCG agreed that for previous iterations of BCF plans both organisations would manage their own risks. The exception in previous iterations of the plan has been community equipment for which a 50:50 risk share arrangement has applied. It is proposed that risk share arrangements for this service in 2019/20 will be brought into line with the broader approach so that each organisation pays for what it uses. ● The proposed arrangement in respect of scheme 7: Integrated therapies for CYP is that where it is agreed through the BCF Core Officer Group that demand cannot be met within the contract value the following arrangements would apply: o Increased demand attributed to therapy needs identified as part of the Education Health and Care Plans (EHCP): the Council would manage this risk in accordance with its duties under the Children and Families Act, 2014. o Increased demand not attributed to therapy needs identified as part of the EHCP: HCCG would manage this risk in accordance with its processes for approving non-budgeted financial pressures.
Risk Share. The Council and CCG agreed that for previous iterations of BCF plans both organisations would manage their own risks and it is proposed that this be extended to 2021/22. Cabinet may wish to note the addition of a new Schedule 4A: Operation of Section 117 Risk Share Arrangements. This regularises existing funding arrangements that are not currently supported by a formal agreement for audit purposes.
Risk Share. £2.8m of the Better Care Fund is linked to the performance payment linked to the target of reducing non-elective acute admissions by 4.2%. Each time the partnership is informed of the value of the performance payment, the funds will need to be transferred into the Pooled Fund, and a report will be prepared for the JCB to allow a decision to be made as to the impact on the delayed/reduced schemes. The performance related payment was introduced to mitigate Acute Trusts against the risk of failing to reduce emergency admissions. CCGs are effectively compensated for unplanned non elective activity. The total value of the BCF pooled budget for 2015/16 is £16.898m. An element of this will be held back at the start of the year by HCCG, this is the performance related element. Hounslow have set the target for reduction in total emergency admissions at 4.2% which equates to a performance element of £2.8m. Based on performance against this target, the fund will be released in arrears on a quarterly basis by the HCCG into the pooled budget. Payment will be directly proportional to performance.
