Leading the Way in Value-Based Healthcare: Highlights from the HFMA Webinar

Stuart Mathers, Care Pathway Specialist at NHS Supply Chain set out how our VBHC programmes support trusts to translate procurement intent into measurable outcomes. 

Our Care Pathway team works directly with finance, clinical, procurement and operational leaders to: 

• Optimise pathways 
• Baseline data accurately 
• Build finance-ready, validated models 
• Track productivity and efficiency gains for up to three years 
• Ensure outcomes are linked to real, sustainable improvements in patient care. 

This data-led, collaborative approach helps trusts avoid common barriers such as inconsistent coding, one-off pilot benefits, or outcomes that can’t be evidenced robustly. 

Our TNE dashboard and waiting list impact tool will help trusts better track performance, identify opportunity and build stronger business cases. 

When evidence is clear, validated and repeatable, value programmes move beyond isolated pilots and into wider adoption. 

Participants in the webinar raised thoughtful questions about how value-based approaches can be embedded more consistently across organisations. The key themes and responses are summarised here. 

1. ‘How can savings be validated in a way that is credible and consistent?‘

Participants highlighted the need for savings and benefits to be supported by robust baselines, reliable data and transparent modelling. Concerns were raised about the risk of inconsistent coding, supplier‑led claims or one‑off improvements that cannot be replicated. 

The response focused on the importance of using a structured, four‑stage methodology across all value‑based programmes: pilot implementation, pathway optimisation, financial modelling and benefits realisation. This approach ensures that outcomes are measurable, repeatable and grounded in real data. Working closely with finance teams during modelling and validation enables organisations to gain confidence in benefits that are evidenced, not assumed. 

2. ‘What does it take to move from isolated pilots to wider adoption across trusts or systems?’

Attendees expressed frustration with ‘pilot‑itis’, where innovations remain localised and are not scaled across neighbouring or partner organisations. Variation in maturity across ICBs was also noted as a barrier to spread. 

The discussion emphasised the importance of replicable pathway blueprints, standardised modelling and shared tools that support adoption in multiple settings. Examples such as Transnasal Endoscopy and Complex Abdominal Wall Reconstruction demonstrated how well‑documented pathways, shared learning and regional collaboration can support wider uptake. Participants were encouraged to engage in forums and networks that support value sharing and continuous improvement. 

3. ‘How can VBHC outcomes be captured and reported alongside traditional CIP metrics?’ 

Attendees asked how to recognise productivity, operational and clinical gains without losing sight of cash‑releasing savings. Many attendees sought clarity on how to report the full picture in a way that boards can easily understand. 

The response explained that VBHC outcomes can be captured alongside CIP, not instead of it. CIP continues to be measured, while broader value metrics such as reduced length of stay, increased capacity, avoided admissions, reduced recurrence and improved patient outcomes are also quantified and validated. The CAWR example illustrated this principle: only part of the overall benefit counted as CIP, while the remaining value was captured as validated productivity and efficiency gains. This dual reporting gives organisations a more complete understanding of impact. 

4. ‘How can data quality and coding challenges be addressed so that value is visible?‘

Participants noted that inconsistent coding, especially in areas such as TNE, can limit visibility of activity and impact. Establishing accurate baselines was identified as a frequent difficulty. 

The response acknowledged these challenges and highlighted the need for early data review, standardised baselining and support to ensure coding accurately reflects clinical activity. New tools, including dashboards for areas such as TNE, were referenced as ways to strengthen visibility, improve accuracy and prevent missed benefits. 

5. ‘What does effective collaboration across finance, procurement and clinical teams look like?’ 

The audience recognised that value programmes work best when multiple functions contribute from the outset. Attendees asked how cross‑functional working can be strengthened and what role each group should play. 

The response reinforced that strong collaboration is essential and shared examples where finance, procurement and clinical colleagues jointly supported pathway redesign, modelling and long‑term monitoring. The CAWR programme was highlighted as an example of good practice, where close engagement between clinical leadership and finance sponsorship enabled robust validation and sustainable change.  

This webinar is one part of our wider mission to support the NHS in delivering smarter, simpler, more connected care. From VBP frameworks to VBHC programmes and pathway redesign, we’re helping ensure that innovation leads to tangible improvements in outcomes, productivity and cost. 

With Heart Month coming up in February 2026, we will continue this conversation by showcasing Cardiac Remote Monitoring, a proven example of value delivery with over £2 million of validated savings and measurable improvements in patient care at University Hospitals Leicester.

See our Useful Links section to read updated case studies.  

We want to continue this conversation with you. The HFMA session showed how much appetite there is across the NHS to strengthen value‑based approaches, and we’re committed to supporting teams to turn opportunity into impact. 

If you can help us link in with the right colleagues in your organisation or system, it will strengthen collective progress.