Author: admin

  • Gregory Campbell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Gregory Campbell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gregory Campbell on 2016-09-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment his Department has made of the outcome of the ProtecT randomised trials into prostate cancer among men.

    David Mowat

    The National Institute for Health Research funded ProtecT trial (Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) published two papers in the New England Journal of Medicine on 14 September 2016: Mortality and Clinical Outcomes at 10 years’ Follow-up in the ProtecT Trial and Patient Reported Outcomes Over Six Years in the ProtecT Prostate Cancer Trial. The papers showed that active surveillance is as effective as surgery and radiotherapy in terms of survival at 10 years for men whose prostate cancer was diagnosed by a prostate specific antigen test. The results of this study will provide men and their doctors with key information needed to manage localised prostate cancer, and will now be examined by appropriate bodies in England. For example, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) periodically reviews the need to update its guidance to reflect new clinical evidence and developments in technologies.

    The NICE quality standard on prostate cancer already contains the statement ‘Men with low risk localised prostate cancer for whom radical prostatectomy or radical radiotherapy is suitable are also offered the option of active surveillance’. The quality standard can be found at this link:

    https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs91

  • Andrea Jenkyns – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrea Jenkyns – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrea Jenkyns on 2016-09-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether the Government has agreed additional protections with the British Medical Association to protect junior doctors who are whistleblowers.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The Government has listened to the British Medical Association’s (BMA) concerns that junior doctors are in a unique position and need greater whistleblowing protections, and it has taken action. The BMA, NHS Employers and Health Education England (HEE) have agreed changes to strengthen whistleblowing protections for junior doctors beyond the scope of existing legislation so that junior doctors can take legal action against HEE, in relation to whistleblowing, as if HEE was their employer.

  • Andrea Jenkyns – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrea Jenkyns – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrea Jenkyns on 2016-09-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the potential effect on patient care of junior doctors taking five days of strike action per month until the end of 2016.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    We were encouraged by the British Medical Association’s (BMA) announcement that it is suspending the rolling programme of five continuous days of industrial action from October to December, which it had previously announced and which would have removed urgent and emergency care from some of our most vulnerable patients.

    We have urged the BMA to remove all threat of further industrial action so we can work constructively with junior doctors to address their wider concerns and better recognise their vital importance to the National Health Service.

    Prior to the BMA’s announcement, NHS England, working with NHS organisations, had assessed the impact of the industrial action on cancelled operations and outpatient services and had developed plans to mitigate the impact of the industrial action.

    Had the BMA continued with their proposed industrial action, based on the levels of disruption during the previous two day all out strike, an initial estimate was that around 25,000 operations and 250,000 outpatient appointments would be cancelled during each five day strike period.

  • Andrea Jenkyns – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrea Jenkyns – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrea Jenkyns on 2016-09-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, which NHS trades unions have taken strike action resulting in the withdrawal of emergency services.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    In their industrial action that took place on 26-27 April the British Medical Association withdrew the whole of the junior doctor workforce (the group involved in the trade dispute) from providing emergency care. No other trade union has taken such action in withdrawing the whole workforce covered by the trade dispute when they provide emergency care. For example when other National Health Service trade unions took action in 2015, the Royal College of Midwives asked its members in those services to continue working to ensure essential services were maintained rather than expecting senior midwives or obstetricians to provide cover.

  • Andrea Jenkyns – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrea Jenkyns – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrea Jenkyns on 2016-09-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many times the Junior Doctors’ Committee of the British Medical Association has (a) left negotiations already in progress and (b) refused written requests to return to negotiations on the proposed junior doctors’ contract since any negotiations on that proposed contract began.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The British Medical Association (BMA) Junior Doctors Committee walked away from negotiations twice. The first time was after almost a year of negotiations on 16 October 2014. The second time was on 4 January 2016 during negotiations following an agreement at ACAS.

    Ministers wrote to the BMA on a number of occasions – four of these letters, between July and November 2015, were explicit requests to enter negotiations. The BMA refused on each occasion.

  • Andrea Jenkyns – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrea Jenkyns – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrea Jenkyns on 2016-09-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many amendments to the proposed junior doctors’ contract the (a) British Medical Association and (b) management side accepted during negotiations on the November 2015 contract offer.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The British Medical Association (BMA) have made five concessions overall. The management side have made 107 concessions overall. These concessions included a number of substantial shifts of position to meet concerns expressed by the BMA including for instance increasing the additional pay received for working at weekends.

    (a) The BMA made one concession in relation to the November 2015 offer during the initial ACAS talks, before the commencement of negotiations which ended in February 2016 with no agreement. This was to accept a move from incremental progression to a nodal pay system.

    They made further concessions (including in relation to the March 2016 contract), in the agreement reached in May 2016. These were:

    (i) Agreement to the extension of plain-time working by two hours per day, with a system of weekend allowances based on the frequency of weekend working for those working more than six weekends a year;

    (ii) Accepting the principle of fidelity to the National Health Service, offering locum work at an agreed hourly rate;

    (iii) Agreeing a change to the March 2016 contract to reduce from 48 to 46 hours rest period after consecutive night shifts, amended to improve work life balance and continuity of care; and

    (iv) Agreeing to remove the rule in the March 2016 contract preventing consecutive weekend working – while retaining a rule that the frequency of weekend working can be no more than 1 in 2 weekends – to allow greater flexibility for doctors and employers.

    (b) The November 2015 offer itself had included two concessions in relation to the recommendations made by the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration. In the ACAS agreement, the BMA accepted this November offer as the basis for negotiations. The management side then made a further 105 concessions: four during ACAS talks, 61 during negotiations that ended in February 2016, six after those negotiations ended, and 34 during negotiations in May 2016.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-09-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether his Department has had discussions with NICE on the Afinitor form of everolimus.

    Nicola Blackwood

    Departmental officials are in regular contact with their counterparts at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) about a range of issues, including individual medicines. This includes discussions on everolimus through the established topic selection processes for NICE’s technology appraisal programme and in relation to potential patient access schemes proposed by the manufacturer.

    NICE has appraised everolimus for a number of indications and is currently appraising it for others.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-09-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what reviews his Department has conducted into the NICE technology appraisal process (a) in general and (b) related to cancer medicines between 1999 and 2016.

    Nicola Blackwood

    The Department has not conducted any reviews of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE) technology appraisal process. NICE is an independent body and is responsible for its own processes and methodology.

    NICE periodically reviews its processes and methodologies to ensure that they remain appropriate, most recently as part of the introduction of the new arrangements for the Cancer Drugs Fund. NICE has demonstrated its ability to adapt to changes in the health and care environment, and we expect it will continue to evolve in the future.

    In addition, the Accelerated Access Review’s full report and recommendations on ways to get patients wider access to innovative and effective drugs is expected shortly.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-09-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when NICE last approved a breast cancer medicine for routine use on the NHS through the technology appraisal process.

    Nicola Blackwood

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has confirmed that the last piece of technology appraisal guidance recommending a breast cancer drug was on gemcitabine for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (TA116), published in January 2007.

    A number of drugs for the treatment of breast cancer have been made available through the Cancer Drugs Fund since it was established in 2010. The Fund has now helped 95,000 people in accessing life-extending cancer drugs that would not otherwise have been available to them.

  • Gregory Campbell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Gregory Campbell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gregory Campbell on 2016-09-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment his Department has made of the benefits derived for people with dementia from recent increased expenditure on dementia research.

    Nicola Blackwood

    Government funding for dementia research doubled over the last Parliament to around £60 million each year, and will be maintained at this level to total over £300 million in the period from 2015/16 to 2019/20. Much of this investment is in research aiming to achieve a better understanding of dementia to inform development of future treatments and ways to prevent the onset of the condition. Significant research is looking at how to improve symptom management, care and services for people with dementia, ways of maintaining independent living in early-stage dementia, and improving quality of life for people with dementia and their carers.