FOI 2026/1775

I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I am a patient at a GP surgery in Greater Manchester seeking to access care via Right to Choose Adult ADHD services. I am requesting this information to support my own access to care, and that of many others in a similar position.

I have reviewed recent FOI responses as some have similar concerns to my own, including FOI 2026/1738 (responded to 15/05/2026):
https://gmintegratedcare.org.uk/freedom-of-information/foi-request/foi-2026-1738/

I am not the original requester and refer to this response only to refine the scope of my own questions, based on the information you indicated could not be disclosed. I am not seeking to challenge that response- nor would I have the right to as it was not my request.

Requests

1. Please confirm whether any independent providers delivering Adult ADHD assessment and care through Right to Choose have already reached their maximum referral capacity under their Indicative Activity Plans (IAPs) in the 2026/2027 financial year (this can be as simple as a yes/no; no provider names or allocation details requested).

2. If yes, please state how many providers have reached this maximum (no provider names or allocation details required).

3. Please provide any available data on how many additional providers are expected to reach maximum capacity within a short-term timeframe – e.g. the first two quarters of 2026/2027, or a comparable period if more appropriate (no provider names or allocation details required).

4. Please provide any available data on whether any providers are forecast to have spare capacity under their IAPs by the end of the 2026/2027 financial year, given current demand for Adult ADHD Right to Choose referrals (no provider names or allocation details required).

5. If so, please state how many providers this applies to (no names or allocation details required).

To minimise workload, I am not requesting full datasets—only sufficient information to give a fair general picture. Summarised responses are entirely acceptable, and internal emails are not required unless they are the only available source. I welcome you presenting the information in whatever is the most convenient format.

Justification and Explanation for Request

I have deliberately limited the scope of these questions in light of your reasoning in FOI 2026/1738 and similar responses.

Regarding “Prejudice to Commercial Interests” this request does not seek to identify providers or disclose commercially sensitive details. It asks only for high-level, aggregated information (i.e. whether capacity limits have been or are expected to be reached), which would not introduce new commercial prejudice. The existence of IAPs and the scale of ADHD waiting lists are already publicly known. Therefore, it can already be reasonably guessed that demand will exceed IAP capacity in this ICB and other ICBs nationally- so my requested information would not unduly influence perception of this.

Regarding “Prejudice to the Effective Conduct of Public Affairs,” the requested information is non-identifiable and would not enable patients to favour specific providers. As such, it should not influence demand distribution or service delivery. If you consider that disclosure would nonetheless prejudice public affairs (e.g. by inviting increased scrutiny which the ICB wishes to avoid), it would be helpful to specify this.

There is a clear public interest in this information. As a patient myself who is newly waiting for ADHD referral in Manchester, I partly make this request out of self-interest. Yet by measure of the many thousands of people in Greater Manchester who are on the ADHD waiting list for several years, my personal interest mirrors this large group’s public interest.  Patients are being signposted to use Right to Choose while also being advised of limits or pauses on referrals, often with incomplete or conflicting information. Those patients in our city who suffer the extended waits for ADHD care are then asked to make decisions without clarity on how these constraints affect access and waiting times.

Recent consultation on Adult ADHD services emphasised the importance of keeping patients informed and involved.

https://getinvolved.gmintegratedcare.org.uk/en-GB/projects/adult-adhd-consultation

Although the information published from that consultation mainly concerns the way cases are prioritised and new avenues of care offered during/after the waiting list, the reality is that Indicative Activity Plans were introduced concurrently with those changes, so it is reasonable that some level of information about their impact is made available. Without this, patients are given only a partial understanding of changes to services that significantly affect them. This is all the more important as those neurodivergent patients who have felt it necessary to seek care will be some of the worst placed people to advocate for their own healthcare, by nature of their mental condition.

Finally, if the ICB wishes to refer to Section 22 of the FOI act regarding exemption for information that is already due to be published at a later date, I would appreciate it if you could indicate any relevant publication plans and where this information will be made available. It would also be helpful to be directed to equivalent information published in previous years, if available. Please also consider that this request is time-sensitive, both for the reasons of public interest outlined above and because one purpose of my asking is that it might support patients making decisions about their care this financial year. The information requested is also very limited in scope and may reasonably be disclosed in advance of any fuller planned publication.

1. No provider has reached their referral capacity. Referrals have not been paused under right to choose activity – new routine assessment activity has been limited, but this has no impact on the number of referrals that can be sent, nor on annual reviews or urgent activity.
2. See response to Q1.
3. See response to Q1.
4. Based on current information, it is likely that some providers may have additional operational capacity outside of their allocated Indicative Activity Plans (IAPs) by the end of the 2026/2027 financial year. However, this is dependent on the IAP levels agreed by other Integrated Care Boards (ICBs), and we hold limited visibility of those arrangements and providers’ wider capacity positions.

Within Greater Manchester, IAPs are managed as part of a system-wide approach to resource management. In addition, further capacity has been invested into commissioned services to support demand pressures, including those relating to Adult ADHD Right to Choose referrals.

At this stage, we are unable to provide definitive forecasts regarding providers’ spare capacity across the wider system.

5. See response to Q4.