Purpose

Briefly explain what the report will be about,
i.e. the issue and then set out the decision(s) required (minimum
of two paragraphs, maximum of five paragraphs)
 
Local Authorities have a statutory duty to
commission sexual health services for residents. In Newham, like
most Councils across London, we commission specialist ‘in
clinic’ services, some services via primary care and also an
online ‘e-service’ (Sexual Health London website also
known as ‘SHL’ ) for the
screening and treatment of simple sexually transmitted infections
(STIs).
 
This paper asks Cabinet for permission to
re-procure a sexual health e-service via an Inter-Authority
Agreement (IAA) with the City of London.
 
The e-service helps to expand resident access
to vital STI screening services, with around 23,000 Newham
residents utilising the existing SHL website in 2023-24. There is
also a degree of anonymity around the e-service that appeals to
communities where there is a relatively high level of stigma around
sexual health – with cultural barriers likely to inhibit
attendance in face-to-face clinics.
 
The Council intends to enter into a new
five-year agreement with CoL, with the
option to extend for up to four additional years (5+2+2). The
estimated spend over the full nine-year term is estimated at
£8-10 million. The lower end of the budget estimate would
apply if the Council retains the service “as is” (i.e.
STI screening only) and the higher end of the estimate would be
more likely to apply should the Council wishes to activate
additional optional work packages in the future. These optional
work packages would be related to oral contraception, PrEP and condom provision.
 

Decision

Decision
 
For the reasons set out in the report and its
appendices Cabinet RESOLVED to Agree to:
 

i) 
Agree that the Council can procure a sexual health e-service, via
the LSHP, which will be led by the City of London as lead
contracting Authority.

ii) 
Delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Adults, Health
& Communities, in consultation with the Lead Member for Health
and Adult Social Care, to:

a) 
agree to the Council entering into an Inter Authority Agreement
(IAA) with all partners of the LSHP2 .
The IAA will allow the Council to utilise the contract for sexual
health E-services to be awarded by City of London, following
completion of a successful procurement, to commence in August 2026
for an initial term of five years with the option to extend for up
to four additional years on a ‘+2+2’ basis (maximum
contract length nine years).

b) 
agree to the Council using the additional services that
CoL will also be procuring as part of
this contract, during the term of the contract, if required as set
out in paragraph 4.1 in accordance with the Council’s
governance processes.

c) 
agree that the Council may continue using the contract referred to
in 2.2.1 above, if CoL extend it in
accordance with the permitted extensions.

iii) 
Note that the City of London will enter into a contract with the
successful tenderer and members of the LSHP will be able to use the
contract and be re[1]charged by CoL
based on usage.
 
Alternatives
Considered
 

a) 
Sexual health services are statutory and need to be commissioned in
some form. A digital option for STI screening clearly helps to save
money and offer choice to residents. Therefore, the only realistic
alternative scenario to be considered was whether it made sense to
join the London-wide programme or to take an independent approach
at borough-level or NEL-level. However, an independent approach was
rejected for the following reasons:

i) 
The current e-service arrangement has worked well to date, as per
qualitative and quantitative data cited above.

ii) 
The main benefit of a London-wide approach is the economy of scale
that it allows: the more testing carried out by a single provider,
the cheaper the unit price. Any independent procurement exercise
would inevitably result in higher unit prices and an increased
pressure on the Council’s Public Health Grant.

b) 
In terms of the preferred procurement route, the LHSP conducted a
review of options and held a vote across the 30 member authorities.
A direct award was deemed possible under the terms of the Provider
Selection Regime (PSR) but the collective preference was for a
competitive process. It was felt this process yielded the greatest
potential to drive efficiencies and innovation, while minimising
the risk of provider challenge.