The impact of devolution on local health systems: Evidence from Greater Manchester, England

Devolution and decentralisation policies involving health and other government sectors have been promoted with a view to improve efficiency and equity in local service provision. Evaluations of these reforms have focused on specific health or care measures, but little is known about their full impact on local health systems. We evaluated the impact of devolution in Greater Manchester (England) on multiple outcomes using a whole system approach. We estimated the impact of devolution until February 2020 on 98 measures of health system performance, using the generalised synthetic control method and adjusting for multiple hypothesis testing. We selected measures from existing monitoring frameworks to populate the WHO Health System Performance Assessment framework. The included measures captured information on health system functions, intermediatory objectives, final goals, and social determinants of health. We identified which indicators were targeted in response to devolution from an analysis of 170 health policy intervention documents. Life expectancy (0.233 years, S.E. 0.012) and healthy life expectancy (0.603 years, S.E. 0.391) increased more in GM than in the estimated synthetic control group following devolution. These increases were driven by improvements in public health, primary care, hospital, and adult social care services as well as factors associated with social determinants of health, including a reduction in alcohol-related admissions (-110.1 admission per 100,000, S.E. 9.07). In contrast, the impact on outpatient, mental health, maternity, and dental services was mixed. Devolution was associated with improved population health, driven by improvements in health services and wider social determinants of health. These changes occurred despite limited devolved powers over health service resources suggesting that other mechanisms played an important role, including the allocation of sustainability and transformation funding and the alignment of decision-makin