NHS CHC Data Changes in May 2026 — What the Final Statistics Show

The Q3 2025/26 publication, released 12 February 2026, is the last NHS CHC statistical report in this format (NHS Digital, February 2026). From 14 May 2026, NHS England transitions to the new All Age Continuing Care (AACC) data system. It's a technical change — but the figures it leaves behind tell a stark story about a programme under sustained pressure. The data shift coincides with a wider NHS reorganisation: see our guide to the 1 April 2026 ICB mergers and the abolition of NHS England for what families with live cases should do.

TL;DR: NHS England published its final CHC statistical report in the current format on 12 February 2026. The data shows 51,154 adults on CHC at an eligibility rate of just 17% — less than half the 31% recorded in 2017/18. From 14 May 2026, statistics move to the new All Age Continuing Care system. Without transparent published figures, the five-fold regional variation in eligibility rates would be invisible to families (Nuffield Trust, September 2025).

What Is Actually Changing on 14 May 2026?

From 14 May 2026, NHS England publishes CHC data through the new All Age Continuing Care system rather than the existing quarterly PDF format (NHS Digital, February 2026). This isn't a decision to stop measuring CHC. It's a structural change in how the data is collected, built, and released.

The All Age Scope

Currently, the statistical series covers adult CHC only. The AACC framework brings children's continuing care into the same data architecture — alongside adult NHS CHC and NHS-funded nursing care. That wider scope could give a more complete picture of NHS continuing care demand. For researchers and advocates, it would mean children's needs finally appear in the same dataset as their adult counterparts.

A Framing Worth Watching

Moving the headline metric from "NHS Continuing Healthcare" to "All Age Continuing Care" isn't a neutral change. It shifts the lens — from a single high-stakes funding programme to a broader care continuum. Whether that produces better advocacy data or obscures CHC-specific trends depends entirely on how granular the ICB-level breakdowns turn out to be. That's the detail to watch when the first AACC publication drops.

understand how CHC is structured

What Does the Final Q3 2025/26 Dataset Show?

The last report in the old format confirms 51,154 adults eligible for NHS CHC at a national rate of 17% (NHS Digital, February 2026). That's a programme that's contracted sharply. The rate stood at 31% in 2017/18. Total recipients have fallen 8.8% over four years. And the trend hasn't reversed.

Standard CHC and Fast-Track Numbers

Of the 51,154 people currently on CHC, 34,140 are on standard CHC and 17,014 are on fast-track (NHS Digital, February 2026). Fast-track is the accelerated pathway for people who are rapidly deteriorating or approaching end of life. It exists to cut bureaucratic delay when time is critical. The fact that fast-track now accounts for a third of all CHC recipients is telling. For some of those families, the timeline matters — their relative's condition worsened while a standard assessment was still pending.

The 28-Day Assessment Target

The 28-day referral target reinforces the same picture. In September 2025, 76% of CHC referrals were completed within 28 days — meaning roughly one in four families waited longer (NHS Digital, February 2026). For a person in hospital or a care home waiting on a funding decision, those extra weeks matter. They can mean out-of-pocket care costs that are hard to recover later.

How Has the CHC Eligibility Rate Changed Year by Year?

The eligibility rate hasn't fallen evenly — it's eroded steadily across the past eight years, with no quarter ever reversing the trend. From 31% in 2017/18 to 24% by 2021 to 17% in 2025/26, the contraction has averaged roughly 1.75 percentage points per year (Nuffield Trust, September 2025). Over the same period, total CHC spending rose 17% while recipient numbers fell 8.8% — meaning the remaining budget concentrates on a smaller group of higher-acuity cases.

The three reference points families should remember

• 2017/18 — 31% eligibility rate. The baseline year against which all subsequent decline is measured. The legal test (the "primary health need" standard under the National Framework) hasn't changed since.
• 2021 — 24% eligibility rate. The Nuffield Trust's mid-point measurement. By this point the rate had fallen 7 percentage points in four years.
• 2025/26 — 17% eligibility rate. The last figure published in the current data format. From 14 May 2026 the methodology changes — making comparable longitudinal tracking dependent on whether the AACC system preserves this metric in the same form.

Why the trajectory matters more than the snapshot

A 17% snapshot says one thing about how restrictive the current threshold is. The 31% → 17% trajectory says something different: that the same legal test is being applied more restrictively each year, with no clinical or demographic explanation. People's needs haven't shrunk. The system's tolerance for awarding eligibility has. That's the pattern the ADASS survey of 151 adult social care directors confirmed — three-quarters reported rising care requests from people previously eligible for CHC (Community Care, July 2025).

If the AACC system breaks this longitudinal view — by using new metrics that don't map onto the old — that trajectory becomes harder to argue from. Watch for whether year-on-year comparisons remain possible in the first published AACC release.

Why Transparent Data Matters for CHC Families

Published ICB-level figures reveal a near five-fold variation in CHC eligibility — from 20 to 95 eligible people per 50,000 adults — depending on where in England a person lives (Nuffield Trust, September 2025). That variation can't be explained by differences in local population health. It reflects inconsistent application of a legal standard that's supposed to be uniform.

How published data changes a family's negotiating position

In our experience reviewing CHC cases, families rarely know their local ICB's eligibility rate. They assume the refusal they've received reflects the national standard. It often doesn't. Access to published data changes that — it gives families and their advocates a concrete basis for arguing that local practice departs from what the National Framework requires.

The Staffordshire ICB case makes this concrete. That 27% cut in CHC eligibility was only identifiable as an outlier because published statistics exist for comparison. Without that data, an affected family would have had nothing but a refusal letter. No context. No basis for challenge. Read the full analysis of ICB eligibility cuts.

The accountability mechanism only works when both datasets are public

There's an accountability angle here that's often missed. The ADASS finding — that 73% of council directors attribute adult social care overspends to tightened NHS CHC eligibility — was only possible because both datasets are public (Community Care, July 2025). You need CHC data and social care spending data together to show that cost is being shifted rather than saved. Take away one set of figures, and the mechanism becomes invisible. For a fuller picture of how that cost-shifting lands on families, see our CHC council cost-shifting analysis.

If you want a structured starting point for your own situation, our free CHC eligibility screener takes about five minutes.

What the AACC System Should Deliver

The AACC system will, NHS England says, bring children's continuing care into the same data architecture as adult CHC for the first time (NHS Digital, February 2026). That's the core promise. Whether the new format also preserves the ICB-level granularity that makes CHC data useful for advocacy — that's the open question.

The comparability risk worth watching

Any data system transition carries a comparability risk. New metrics may not map cleanly onto the old ones. That makes it harder to track long-term trends in eligibility rates — and easier for ICBs to argue that comparisons aren't valid. NHS England's published guidance doesn't confirm exactly which metrics carry over from the current format. Watch the first AACC release carefully.

Why "All Age" matters for children with complex needs

The "All Age" framing is genuinely valuable if it works. Children with complex health needs face eligibility battles that mirror those of adults — often with even less public awareness or advocacy support. Bringing their data into the same reporting framework creates, at minimum, the possibility of a more joined-up view of continuing care demand across the NHS. For families dealing with the adult-side regional variation, our CHC postcode lottery breakdown shows what that inconsistent application looks like in practice.

---

Citation Capsule — Data System Transition: The NHS England Q3 2025/26 CHC statistical publication, released 12 February 2026, is the final report in the current PDF format. From 14 May 2026, NHS England transitions to the All Age Continuing Care (AACC) data system. The Q3 2025/26 data shows 51,154 adults eligible for NHS CHC at a 17% eligibility rate — down from 31% in 2017/18 — with total recipients declining 8.8% over four years (NHS Digital, February 2026).

Citation Capsule — Regional Variation: Nuffield Trust research published September 2025 found CHC eligibility rates across English ICBs ranging from 20 to 95 eligible people per 50,000 adults — a near five-fold variation that can't be explained by differences in population health. The variation is only measurable because NHS England publishes ICB-level data; without transparent figures, regional inconsistency in applying the National Framework would be invisible to families and advocates (Nuffield Trust, September 2025).

---

The shift to AACC matters less than what happens to data quality inside it. Maintain ICB-level granularity. Publish comparable time-series. Extend to children's continuing care. If the new system does those things, it's worth the transition. If it smooths over regional variation in the name of simplification, families lose one of their most practical advocacy tools.

The Q3 2025/26 figures are the baseline worth holding: 51,154 adults on CHC, a 17% eligibility rate, 24% of families waiting more than 28 days for an assessment decision. For anyone currently in the CHC process, knowing where your ICB sits relative to those national figures is actionable information.

How Can Families Use This CHC Data in Practice?

The data transition itself doesn't change your legal rights under the National Framework — but it does change which figures you can cite in writing to support a challenge. The Q3 2025/26 NHS Digital report is the last published dataset in the old format (NHS Digital, February 2026), and the figures it captures are the most directly comparable to historical CHC statistics. Five practical steps families with an active CHC case can take:

1. Save the Q3 2025/26 dataset to your own files

NHS Digital usually keeps historical reports accessible, but format migrations sometimes break old URLs or restructure the data. Save the Q3 2025/26 publication (PDF + accompanying CSVs) locally. Preserving the comparable baseline now protects you in any future appeal, especially if the AACC transition restructures how the dataset is presented.

2. Record your ICB's most recent published eligibility rate

If your relative's case is being assessed in an ICB that historically sits below the national average (the postcode lottery showed near five-fold variation), document that rate now while it's clearly comparable. The Nuffield Trust analysis is the best independent breakdown.

3. Treat the 28-day target as a hard reference, not an aspiration

In September 2025, 24% of families were waiting longer than 28 days for a CHC decision. If your assessment is past 28 days, that's not "normal NHS delay" — it's an ICB failing the statutory expectation. Write to the ICB CHC team citing the framework target and the published completion rate, and ask for a date in writing.

4. Lock in evidence preparation before the data view shifts

ICB decisions remain challengeable regardless of which dataset the NHS publishes. But the cleanest arguments cite specific figures alongside specific evidence. Get your relative's DST documentation, GP records, and care home daily notes in order now — see our SAR family guide for the request templates.

5. Watch the first AACC release for ICB-level granularity

NHS England has confirmed the AACC system replaces the old quarterly PDF format but hasn't published all the metric-mapping detail families need. When the first AACC release lands, check whether ICB-level breakdowns survive the transition. If they don't, that's an advocacy issue worth raising publicly — through ADASS, Healthwatch England, or your MP. ICB-level data is the single most useful piece of evidence for an appeal in a low-eligibility area.

The shift to AACC matters less than what happens to data quality inside it. Maintain ICB-level granularity. Publish comparable time-series. Extend to children's continuing care. If the new system does those things, it's worth the transition. If it smooths over regional variation in the name of simplification, families lose one of their most practical advocacy tools.

If you want a structured starting point for your own situation, our free CHC eligibility screener takes about five minutes, or work through our full CHC funding guide.

---

This article is based on the NHS Digital Q3 2025/26 CHC and NHS-funded Nursing Care statistical publication (12 February 2026), the Nuffield Trust's "Consigned to the Too Difficult Box" report (September 2025), and the ADASS summer survey of 151 adult social care directors (July 2025). It does not constitute legal advice. Content was last reviewed in May 2026 and has been reviewed by legal professionals and social care professionals.