- Who runs it
- Care Quality Commission
- Can it affect people?
- Possibly. It may shape what people see, are recommended, flagged, or prioritised for.
- Possible rights impact: Indirect public effect
How much do we know?
A source is a published page or document behind a claim. The label measures what is documented, not whether a system is good or safe. Missing information does not prove that a safeguard is missing.
Sources and further reading
- Care Provider Fees Calculator - public register entry / GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records / 30 March 2026
- GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records - browse the register / GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records
optional detailFull record and details
The interface and explanatory guides are translated. Record names, record descriptions, quotations, detailed editorial notes, and linked public documents stay in their published language so evidence is not silently changed.
What it does
A rules-based calculator that uses a care provider's registration details and the published CQC fee scheme to prepare its annual invoice amount.
the story
Each month, the calculator finds providers at their anniversary date, applies the fee rules, and gives the finance team a result to inspect before invoicing.
Facts to check
- 01
The calculation uses registration information supplied by care providers.
- 02
Finance staff manually review monthly results for unusual values.
- 03
The register entry does not describe a calculator-specific appeal path.
If this affects someone
The output determines a proposed financial charge for a regulated care provider. Incorrect registration data or rules could produce the wrong invoice.
The Accounts Receivable team runs the calculation monthly and manually reviews the output for outlying results before information moves to the finance system.
The transparency record does not set out a separate appeal mechanism for the calculator itself.
Care-provider registration details from the internal customer system and the rules in the CQC's published fee scheme.
Sources and further reading
Based on an individual entry in the GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records. Unknowns are stated plainly instead of being filled with guesses.
Plain-language text was checked against the linked sources. Older editorial records do not retain model or prompt logs, so this is explanation, never evidence.
Facts to check
- Who runs it
- Care Quality Commission
- Life area
- Regulation
- Proof level
- Source-backed
- Footnotes
- 2
- updated
- 7 months ago
The score orders work, not people.
Review priority rises for rights-sensitive uses, missing sources, unanswered accountability fields, and old evidence. Strong official documentation lowers it. The score is not a verdict on safety, fairness, or legality.
A missing field means the attached public sources did not answer it. Coverage is uneven, publication does not prove performance, and a certificate has a defined boundary.
Previous versions
- Imported2 months agoPartialImported from GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records.
- Public register record7 months agoSubstantialAdded from the GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records.
Help check this record.
Add a public source, challenge a claim, or point out a missing way to reach a person.
A submitted name, email, description, source, or correction is used only to verify the record and prevent abuse. It is not published automatically.