Author: admin

  • Rob Marris – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Rob Marris – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rob Marris on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, by what date his Department plans to respond to the email from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West of 9 June 2016, reference ZA4209, on delayed correspondence received by NHS Improvement.

    Ben Gummer

    NHS Improvement replied to the email of 13 May that it received from the hon. Member on 28 June 2016.

    In April 2016 NHS Improvement brought together Monitor, NHS Trust Development Authority, NHS England’s Patient Safety team, the National Reporting and Learning System, NHS England’s Advancing Change team and its Intensive Support Teams.

    NHS Improvement advise that they are strengthening their regional presence and refining their processes, including how they respond to queries. Their aim is to respond to letters and other correspondence from hon. Members within the Whitehall standard of 18 working days.

    The Department has no record of having received an email from the hon. Member on 9 June 2016.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many incidences of loss or deterioration of vision as a result of postponed ophthalmology appointments his Department has recorded in each of the last three years.

    Alistair Burt

    All follow-up appointments should take place when clinically appropriate. It is for clinicians to make decisions on when they see patients, in line with their clinical priority, and patients should not experience undue delay at any stage of their referral, diagnosis or treatment. The appropriate interval for follow up appointments will vary between different services or specialties, and between individual patients, depending on the severity of their condition.

    To ensure that patients are seen at the appropriate time, NHS England’s guidance, “Recording and reporting referral to treatment waiting times for consultant-led elective care” is clear that when patients on planned lists are clinically ready for their care to commence and reach the date for their planned appointment, they should either receive that appointment or be transferred to an active waiting list. At that point, a waiting time clock will be started and their wait reported in the relevant statistical return.

    Hospital episode statistics contain details of all outpatient appointments at National Health Service hospitals in England and commissioned by the NHS from independent sector organisations in England. The recording of a primary diagnosis and postponed or cancelled appointments is not mandatory within the outpatient commissioning data set and there are no plans to make it so.

    Data is not, therefore, available on the number of cancelled or postponed follow up appointments for patients with age-related macular degeneration, central retinal vein occlusion and diabetic macular oedema.

    No assessment has been made of the effect of hospital-initiated postponement or cancellation of ophthalmology follow-up appointments on patients’ sight. However, officials have met with the Clinical Council for Eye Health Commissioning and are considering their concerns.

  • Rob Marris – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Rob Marris – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rob Marris on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, by what date NHS Improvement plan to respond to the email it received from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West on 13 May 2016, reference ZA4209, on delay.

    Ben Gummer

    NHS Improvement replied to the email of 13 May that it received from the hon. Member on 28 June 2016.

    In April 2016 NHS Improvement brought together Monitor, NHS Trust Development Authority, NHS England’s Patient Safety team, the National Reporting and Learning System, NHS England’s Advancing Change team and its Intensive Support Teams.

    NHS Improvement advise that they are strengthening their regional presence and refining their processes, including how they respond to queries. Their aim is to respond to letters and other correspondence from hon. Members within the Whitehall standard of 18 working days.

    The Department has no record of having received an email from the hon. Member on 9 June 2016.

  • Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Tulip Siddiq – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tulip Siddiq on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment his Department has made of the effect of hospital-initiated postponement or cancellation of ophthalmology follow-up appointments on patients’ sight.

    Alistair Burt

    All follow-up appointments should take place when clinically appropriate. It is for clinicians to make decisions on when they see patients, in line with their clinical priority, and patients should not experience undue delay at any stage of their referral, diagnosis or treatment. The appropriate interval for follow up appointments will vary between different services or specialties, and between individual patients, depending on the severity of their condition.

    To ensure that patients are seen at the appropriate time, NHS England’s guidance, “Recording and reporting referral to treatment waiting times for consultant-led elective care” is clear that when patients on planned lists are clinically ready for their care to commence and reach the date for their planned appointment, they should either receive that appointment or be transferred to an active waiting list. At that point, a waiting time clock will be started and their wait reported in the relevant statistical return.

    Hospital episode statistics contain details of all outpatient appointments at National Health Service hospitals in England and commissioned by the NHS from independent sector organisations in England. The recording of a primary diagnosis and postponed or cancelled appointments is not mandatory within the outpatient commissioning data set and there are no plans to make it so.

    Data is not, therefore, available on the number of cancelled or postponed follow up appointments for patients with age-related macular degeneration, central retinal vein occlusion and diabetic macular oedema.

    No assessment has been made of the effect of hospital-initiated postponement or cancellation of ophthalmology follow-up appointments on patients’ sight. However, officials have met with the Clinical Council for Eye Health Commissioning and are considering their concerns.

  • Mark Menzies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mark Menzies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Menzies on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 27 May 2016 to Question 37187, what recent steps his Department has taken to (a) improve the provision of care for patients with and (b) increase funding for research into lung diseases other than chronic pulmonary disease, asthma and lung cancer.

    Jane Ellison

    To help the National Health Service understand what a good quality service looks like, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence publishes quality standards which define best practice within the topic area. It has recently published quality standards on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (January 2015) and pneumonia (January 2016).

    The National Institute for Health Research welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including any lung disease. These applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and health and care services, value for money and scientific quality.

  • Mark Menzies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mark Menzies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Menzies on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much his Department has spent on funding research into improving the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

    George Freeman

    The information requested is not available.

    The Department’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) spent £25.5 million on respiratory disease research in 2014/15 (the latest available figure). Most of this investment (£16.6 million in 2014/15) is in infrastructure for respiratory research where spend on specific topics such as the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis cannot be separated from total infrastructure expenditure. This infrastructure includes NIHR biomedical research centres and the NIHR Clinical Research Network.

    The NIHR manages the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, which is funded by the Medical Research Council and NIHR. The programme is currently funding a £1.4 million efficacy and mechanism evaluation of treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with the addition of co-trimoxazole.

  • Jon Trickett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Jon Trickett – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jon Trickett on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the effect of the extension of the mental health officer pension age to 65 on the health and income of pension scheme members with Mental Health Officer status.

    Alistair Burt

    Mental Health Officer status is a reserved right for members who joined the NHS Pension Scheme before 6 March 1995 and have continued working in a role that qualifies for this status. The historic rationale for Mental Health Officer status related to working in long stay mental hospitals that no longer exist. It was clearly inappropriate and unnecessary to retain different pension arrangements for staff working in mental health to other National Health Service staff. This was recognised in 1995 when it was removed for new entrants.

    When the normal pension age (NPA) for new members of the scheme changed to 65 in 2008, the only Mental Health Officers with an NPA of 65 are those who, at the time, chose to transfer to the 2008 section of the scheme. Those who did not transfer retained their Mental Health Officer status. As part of the Hutton reforms to public service pensions, scheme members who on 1 April 2012 were not within 10 years of their NPA moved to the 2015 scheme for future service with an NPA the same as their state pension age. Most Mental Health Officers were within 10 years of their NPA of 55 and so were unaffected. A minority of Mental Health Officers did transfer to the 2015 scheme but all their benefits earned up to that point are fully protected and payable in accordance with Mental Health Officer status rules, so without reduction at 55 and including a calculation to reflect the doubling of the value of some service for accrual purposes.

    The Working Longer Group, a partnership group of nationally recognised NHS trade unions, NHS employers and health department representatives, was established by the Government to review the implications of the NHS workforce working to a later, raised retirement age. The Group is taking forward its recommendations, accepted by Ministers, to support staff working longer in the NHS.

  • Mark Menzies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mark Menzies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Menzies on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when he plans to make a decision on the drug Nivolumab becoming available under the Early Access to Medicines Scheme to treat patients with renal cell carcinoma.

    George Freeman

    The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a positive scientific opinion concerning the use of nivolumab for renal cell carcinoma under the Early Access to Medicines Scheme on 11 February 2016. This scientific opinion has now lapsed as nivolumab has received its marketing authorisation for use in for renal cell carcinoma from the European Commission.

  • Mark Menzies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mark Menzies – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Menzies on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the current budget is for treating dementia in prisons.

    Ben Gummer

    Prisoners with dementia should be offered the treatment and care they require, equivalent to that provided to people with similar needs in the community.

    Health services in prisons are commissioned by NHS England to meet the health needs of prisoners. Every person entering a prison will have an initial health screen at reception where health needs are assessed and where appropriate referrals are made to other services. Prisoners with dementia who also have care and support needs will have these assessed and any eligible care needs will be met by the local authority in which the prison is situated.

    The budget for treating dementia in prisons cannot be reported separately, as the prison healthcare budget is not disaggregated into specific treatment provision or diagnoses.

  • Keith Vaz – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Keith Vaz – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Keith Vaz on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans he has to bring forward proposals for a change to legislation to further regulate the pricing of everyday drugs to the NHS by pharmaceutical companies.

    George Freeman

    The Department is already referring cases to the Competition and Market Authority (CMA) and to strengthen our work in this area. We are considering putting measures in place to routinely and systematically monitor significant price increases of generic medicines and take action where appropriate, including the possible referral of suspected excessive pricing to the CMA, while taking into account the potential impact of any such action on the availability of medicines.