1. Partnership Health: Evaluation and possibilities for an adapted structure Agenda item 11 Madhavi Bajekal, ONS (UK) PH coordinator Directors of Social Statistics 18-19 September 2006

2. Structure of the presentation n Background of PH: aims, scope, partners n Current structure of PH n Key achievements of PH in past 3 years n Added-value of PH and lessons learned n Options for the future Directors of Social Statistics 18-19 September 2006

3. Partnership on Health Statistics n Aims: to further develop and implement a consistent set of comparable public health statistics to do this through intensive collaboration between 25 MS (and EFTA, CC and AC) n Scope: full range of Public Health statistics: from health determinants, diseases, healthcare and mortality n Main partners: all responsible national statistical authorities (NSIs, Ministries of Health, Institutes of Public Health) n All 25 Member States participate in PH Directors of Social Statistics 18-19 September 2006

4. Partnership Health Structure -1 Partnership Health replaced Leadership Group Health in 2003; Marked the transition from development to implementation; and expansion of membership to include all 25 MS Partnership Health comprises three strands of work: Health Interview Surveys (HIS), including morbidity and disability statistics, Health Care Statistics (CARE), Causes of Death Statistics (CoD). Directors of Social Statistics 18-19 September 2006

5. Partnership Health Structure - 2 Four types of groups Partnership Health Management (ONS/CG Leads/Eurostat) coordination, reporting, forward planning 3 Core Groups (8 or 9 MS each/twice yearly) monitoring needs and initiation of further dev work 3 Technical Groups (all MS + representatives of DGs, international organisations/yearly) Discussion on implementation (collection and delivery of statistics) Task Forces (experts – ad hoc) development work, responsiveness to change (Organisational chart of PH structure: Annex A of report) Directors of Social Statistics 18-19 September 2006

6. Key Achievements of PH (2003-2006) n Health Interview Surveys (HIS) Preparation of four key modules of the EHIS core survey for implementation in all MS 2005 – Morbidity Statistics Development Group set up Cause of Death (CoD) Standard procedures for death certification, automated coding Road map to implement quality improvements Health care (CARE) Expenditure data (SHA): implementation of joint OECD-WHO- Eurostat data collection Non-expenditure data: quality improvements, better harmonisation with OECD-WHO-Eurostat data collection PH Management Support in the preparation of the draft Regulation Support in the inter-agency collaboration (OECD-WHO-UNECE) Directors of Social Statistics 18-19 September 2006

7. Added value of Partnership Health n Feedback from MS participants: understanding of relevance and impact of PH improved timeliness, quality, range of statistics exchange of experiences, operational benefits n Overall benefits identified: cost-effective model to harness expert knowledge and practical experience within EU greater ‘democracy’ through engagement of all MS promotes a common EU voice reduced burden of collection by inter-agency collaboration Directors of Social Statistics 18-19 September 2006

8. Lessons Learned n Communication and openness annual TG meetings offer limited scope for 2-way dialogue lack of clarity in selection of CG leads and members openness to encourage shared ownership of decisions develop procedures for induction of new members* n Resource contribution imbalance in resource (‘manpower’) input between MS n Scrutiny and review processes : processes needed to assess authority and feasibility of TF recommendations provide a scrutiny function for EU Implementing Regulations to assess feasibility, burden of collection, compliance develop and document governance structures within PH* Directors of Social Statistics 18-19 September 2006

9. Future role of PH: main challenges n Maintain and continue development work in existing three strands in new areas (such as morbidity statistics) n Expand the remit of PH to include quality assurance Across all stages of project life cycle  Development – scientifically sound  Implementation – testing, translation, piloting  First collection – validation (with NSIs)  Established collections – year-on-year change, consistency and comparability issues for end-users Periodic quality review – to ensure ‘fitness-for-purpose’ of statistical collections for policy needs. Directors of Social Statistics 18-19 September 2006

10. Future structure of PH: options n Options discarded from further consideration end PH continue PH unchanged n Options for consideration : Option 1: continue the existing model Option 2: adapt the PH structure, taking TG layer out of PH Option 3:implement the adapted structure as a CENEX Directors of Social Statistics 18-19 September 2006

11. Option 1: continue existing model n PH/CG/TG structure retained, with foll recommendations: new 4 th strand – Morbidity statistics – with its own CG, reporting to TG HIS implement processes to improve communication CG↔TG explain better the criteria for selection of CG members strengthen the scrutiny function of PH review financial arrangements for funding PH adequately and fairly incorporate possibilities for training, eg. structured workshops Directors of Social Statistics 18-19 September 2006

12. Option 2: adapt model n Take TG layer out of PH, to be managed directly by Eurostat n Advantages: PH more focused on methodological development and quality assurance through CGs by excluding TG meetings from PH, more balanced financing of meetings (through Eurostat) and of staff costs (through PH grant) Scrutiny function maintained through active involvement of CG leads in Eurostat-led TG meetings. Directors of Social Statistics 18-19 September 2006

13. Option 3: implement Option 2 as a CENEX Why Cenex? n PH meets all the eligibility criteria for a CENEX n Cenex requires application of principles of project management to improve quality assurance and knowledge management across EU- funded projects n for PH this means a more formal structure, accountable to DSS/SPC n main differences between Option 2 and Option 3 are: establishment of a Steering Group (SG): takes over the tasks of PH management group and provides clear leadership on strategy, planning, quality assurance, scrutiny PH co-ordinator performing executive function, e.g. day-to- day management, coordination, expenses etc Directors of Social Statistics 18-19 September 2006

15. Directors of Social Statistics are asked to: note Evaluation of Partnership Health over last 3 years to comment on: expanded role of PH options for the future structure of PH Directors of Social Statistics 18-19 September 2006