Author: admin

  • Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the effect of changes to the funding formula for GP surgeries on surgeries in (a) Huddersfield and (b) Kirklees.

    Alistair Burt

    Approximately 55% of general practitioner (GP) practices operate under General Medical Service (GMS) contract arrangements. Typically, at least half of the money that a GMS practice receives is in the form of the ‘global sum’, derived through the Carr-Hill Formula.

    The formula, as agreed with the British Medical Association (BMA) before the introduction of the 2004 GP contract, is used to allocate the global sum and related payments on the basis of the practice population, weighted for factors that influence relative needs and costs.

    There are indications that the formula does not work as effectively in areas with demographically atypical populations, such as new towns or areas with high student populations. NHS England is working with the BMA’s General Practitioners Committee, NHS Employers, the Department and academic partners on the review to develop a formula that better reflects the factors that drive workload, such as age or deprivation. As part of this work, the effect of any changes on practice funding in specific areas such as Huddersfield and Kirklees will be considered. It is intended that the review of the Carr-Hill formula will inform the 2017-18 GP contract.

    A search of the Department’s Ministerial correspondence database has identified one item of correspondence received since 1 May 2015 from university health centres. There has also been a Ministerial meeting related to areas with demographically atypical populations, in this case new towns. It was not possible to identify correspondence received from GP surgeries with atypical patient profiles. This represents correspondence received by the Department’s ministerial correspondence unit only.

  • Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he made of the funding needs of (a) university health centres and (b) other GP surgeries with atypical patient profiles in applying the core funding formula for GP surgeries.

    Alistair Burt

    Approximately 55% of general practitioner (GP) practices operate under General Medical Service (GMS) contract arrangements. Typically, at least half of the money that a GMS practice receives is in the form of the ‘global sum’, derived through the Carr-Hill Formula.

    The formula, as agreed with the British Medical Association (BMA) before the introduction of the 2004 GP contract, is used to allocate the global sum and related payments on the basis of the practice population, weighted for factors that influence relative needs and costs.

    There are indications that the formula does not work as effectively in areas with demographically atypical populations, such as new towns or areas with high student populations. NHS England is working with the BMA’s General Practitioners Committee, NHS Employers, the Department and academic partners on the review to develop a formula that better reflects the factors that drive workload, such as age or deprivation. As part of this work, the effect of any changes on practice funding in specific areas such as Huddersfield and Kirklees will be considered. It is intended that the review of the Carr-Hill formula will inform the 2017-18 GP contract.

    A search of the Department’s Ministerial correspondence database has identified one item of correspondence received since 1 May 2015 from university health centres. There has also been a Ministerial meeting related to areas with demographically atypical populations, in this case new towns. It was not possible to identify correspondence received from GP surgeries with atypical patient profiles. This represents correspondence received by the Department’s ministerial correspondence unit only.

  • Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Barry Sheerman – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Sheerman on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what representations he has received from (a) university health centres and (b) other GP surgeries with atypical patient profiles on funding formula changes.

    Alistair Burt

    Approximately 55% of general practitioner (GP) practices operate under General Medical Service (GMS) contract arrangements. Typically, at least half of the money that a GMS practice receives is in the form of the ‘global sum’, derived through the Carr-Hill Formula.

    The formula, as agreed with the British Medical Association (BMA) before the introduction of the 2004 GP contract, is used to allocate the global sum and related payments on the basis of the practice population, weighted for factors that influence relative needs and costs.

    There are indications that the formula does not work as effectively in areas with demographically atypical populations, such as new towns or areas with high student populations. NHS England is working with the BMA’s General Practitioners Committee, NHS Employers, the Department and academic partners on the review to develop a formula that better reflects the factors that drive workload, such as age or deprivation. As part of this work, the effect of any changes on practice funding in specific areas such as Huddersfield and Kirklees will be considered. It is intended that the review of the Carr-Hill formula will inform the 2017-18 GP contract.

    A search of the Department’s Ministerial correspondence database has identified one item of correspondence received since 1 May 2015 from university health centres. There has also been a Ministerial meeting related to areas with demographically atypical populations, in this case new towns. It was not possible to identify correspondence received from GP surgeries with atypical patient profiles. This represents correspondence received by the Department’s ministerial correspondence unit only.

  • Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Steve McCabe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steve McCabe on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 24 March 2016 to Question 32057, on Epilepsy Death, for what reasons his Department made the decision to retire quality and outcomes framework indicators EP002 and EP003 in 2014.

    Alistair Burt

    Senior NHS England clinicians and representatives of the British Medical Association reviewed and agreed all the proposed changes to the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) taking into account the views of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Public Health England.

    The removal of QOF indicators will not mean that general practitioners (GPs) will no longer tackle important health issues, rather, the aim is that reducing QOF will help free up time to enable GPs to spend more time on providing more proactive coordinated and individual care for their patients, based on their clinical judgement. The reduction in the number of QOF indicators was intended to reduce bureaucracy, unnecessary patient testing and unnecessary frequency of patient recall and recording.

  • Mike Freer – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mike Freer – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mike Freer on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, which (a) Ministers and (b) officials of his Department plan to attend the UN General Assembly high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS at the UN headquarters in New York in June 2016.

    Jane Ellison

    The United Kingdom Government will be represented at this meeting. Precise attendance has still to be finalised.

  • Matthew Pennycook – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Matthew Pennycook – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Matthew Pennycook on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether he plans to make oral contraceptive pills available without a doctor’s prescription.

    George Freeman

    The Government has no plans to make oral contraceptive pills available without a prescription.

    Any applications to reclassify specific products from prescription only to non-prescription supply would be considered in accordance with its usual procedures by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

  • Cat Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Cat Smith – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Cat Smith on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will take steps to increase the number of bedded inpatient services for young people with mental health conditions.

    Alistair Burt

    The £1.4 billion additional funding the Government has made available over the course of this Parliament to deliver the vision set out in Future in Mind includes £7 million to enable NHS England to commission 56 new inpatient care beds for children and young people with mental health needs. This raises the total number of beds to 1,442, the highest this has ever been.

    The local Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) transformation plans developed during 2015/16 provide the ideal context within which to make decisions about the future requirements for CAMHS T4 beds. The specialised commissioners have reviewed the approach to be taken to the CAMHS T4 procurement and have moved away from a single national procurement to local procurement, clearly set within a national framework. This revised approach will enable variation around timescales and ensure responsiveness to the local agenda. The approach will also reinforce the essential local ownership of capacity plans and pathways of care.

    We also need to be clear that effective mental health care is about far more than inpatient beds. We are therefore working with local commissioners to strengthen care across the system. The aim is to bolster preventive and early-intervention services that help young people stay well in their own communities, without ever needing inpatient care.

  • Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Brake on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what arrangements his Department has put in place to ensure that long-term funding is available for the transfer of care for people with learning disabilities from inpatient facilities to community care settings outlined in NHS England’s Transforming Care programme.

    Alistair Burt

    In national service model and Building the right support published in October 2015 NHS England, the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services set out how areas would be supported to deliver lasting change to people with a learning disability and/or autism who display behaviour that challenges.

    To develop community capacity, clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), local authorities and NHS England’s specialised commissioners have formed 48 transforming care partnerships (TCPs) to plan for the future. TCPs have been asked to use the total sum of money they spend as a whole system on people with a learning disability and/or autism to deliver care in a different way to achieve better results. This includes shifting money from some services (such as inpatient care) into others (such as community health services including mental health services or individual packages of support). The costs of the future model of care will therefore be met from the total current envelope of spend on health and social care services for people with a learning disability and/or autism.

    During a phase of transition, commissioners will need to invest in new community support before closing inpatient provision. To support them to do this NHS England will make available up to £30 million of transformation funding over three years, to be matched by CCGs, and £15 million in capital funding. This funding is in addition to the £10 million made available to six fast track areas in 2015/16.

  • Will Quince – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Will Quince – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Will Quince on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 21 March 2016 to Question 32013, what sanctions will apply to NHS maternity units which do not reduce their rates of stillbirth and neo-natal death.

    Ben Gummer

    The mandate to NHS England includes a goal and deliverable for measurable progress towards reducing the rate of stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths and brain injuries that are caused during or soon after birth by 50% by 2030 with a measurable reduction by 2020.

    The mandate also has a deliverable for in 2016/17 to implement agreed recommendations of the National Maternity Review in relation to safety, and support progress on delivering Sign up to Safety. On 7 March we launched ‘Spotlight on Maternity’ as part of ‘Spotlight on Safety’ and asked all trusts with maternity services to commit publically to placing a spotlight on maternity and to contributing towards achieving the Government’s national ambition.

    The Department holds NHS England to account for progress against the mandate, which will include progress against the deliverable and goal above. It would be for commissioners (NHS England or clinical commissioning groups) to design contracts to incentivise providers to reduce their rates of stillbirth and neonatal death, and NHS Improvement may look at these rates as part of regulating providers.

  • Ruth Cadbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Ruth Cadbury – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ruth Cadbury on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many clinical commissioning groups and local authorities are jointly commissioning children’s palliative care as set out in the Children and Families Act 2014.

    Ben Gummer

    The Department does not collect information centrally on commissioning of children’s palliative care by clinical commissioning groups. Clinical commissioning groups have responsibility for ensuring that they are meeting the needs of those requiring children’s palliative care services, considering the full range of local provision, both statutory and voluntary sectors and the wishes of children and young people and their families.

    The Children and Families Act 2014 requires joint commissioning arrangements between local authorities in England and their partner commissioning bodies for children and young people with special educational need and disability. It does not require clinical commissioning groups and local authorities to jointly commission children’s palliative care.