Key Summary
- Northamptonshire ICB must cut costs by nearly a third, aiming to save £16.7m, raising staff job loss fears
- Plans for a Leicester, Northamptonshire, and Rutland ICB cluster with shared management were sent to NHS England
- MiP warns cuts will harm local economies, risk skilled staff, and create chaos without a clear plan
NHS staff have revealed their concerns about losing their jobs after health services were told to reduce their running costs.
In April, Northamptonshire Integrated Care Board (ICB) was instructed to cut its running costs by nearly a third before year-end.
The reduction of cost indicates the potential for hundreds of them to lose jobs.
This movement is described as "cutting back on unnecessary bureaucracy" and "reinvesting savings in frontline care," by the Department of Health and Social Care.
Northamptonshire ICB refused to comment on the present scenario.
There are more than 200 staff in Northamptonshire and nearly 330 in Leicestershire and Rutland ICB.
Currently, the running cost is a combined £53 million to run both ICBs.
A savings of £16.7 million is aimed to achieve via cost cutting practices.
Northamptonshire and Leicestershire and Rutland ICBs have proposed plans to amalgamate for expenditure reduction.
Managers in Partnership (MiP), the NHS managers’ union, warned that the cuts will harm local economies and make it harder to retain skilled staff.
“The government's massive gamble to cut half of the ICB workforce was taken without any plan or assessment of what new structures need to do,” said Jon Rustell, MiP chief executive said.
"Three months on from that decision there is still no sign of the Ten Year Health Plan and still no national mechanism to make staff redundant. The speed of the cuts, to be made by the end of the year, is causing chaos," he added.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service confirmed at a recent Integrated Care Partnership meeting that formal proposals for a Leicester, Northamptonshire, and Rutland ICB cluster were sent to NHS England in May.
If approved, it would mean shared management and functions, but not a full merger.