Blog

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-29.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what response they have made to the report of the Centre for Health and the Public Interest on contracting in the National Health Service.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Under NHS England’s Standard Financial Instruction both clinical commissioning groups and commissioning support units have an obligation to provide NHS England with details of all contracts entered into with third party suppliers. These arrangements are then subject to review by NHS England’s Commercial and Legal Teams.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-29.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many contracts between the National Health Service and the private sector have been subject to (1) contract query notes, (2) termination of contracts, and (3) financial sanctions, since the Health and Social Care Act 2012 came into force.

Lord Prior of Brampton

As part of the transformation of commercial and procurement functions, NHS England and the clinical commissioning groups will be developing a centralised view of the contract data as recommended in the Centre for Health and Public Interest independent body report. Information in accordance with that report will be available in the future.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-29.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they have ensured that the National Health Service has fully absorbed the lessons of the Public Accounts Committee report identifying significant weaknesses in central government’s capacity to monitor and enforce contracts with large private companies.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Department is addressing the recommendations set out in the Public Accounts Committee Report. Through our normal accountability arrangements we have sought assurance from our arm’s length bodies (ALBs), including NHS England, that they have the necessary organisational architecture in place to support good contract management and will continually strive to improve by applying best practice. The Department is building a contract management function which will seek to advise ALBs on how to apply effective contract management.

Each ALB will be responsible for determining its next steps. Each ALB will need to provide the necessary assurances that it is operating effectively and that it has the requisite capability and capacity to support effective contract management of significant amounts of public money.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-10-29.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government who are the members of, and what are the terms of reference for, the Department of Health’s Appraisal Alignment Working Group.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The current membership of the Appraisal Alignment Working Group is as follows:

Department of Health

Keith Derbyshire (Chair) Chief Analyst and Chief Economist

Danny Palnoch Senior Economic Adviser

Peter Bennett Senior Operational Research Scientist

Dr Mark Bale Deputy Chief Medical Officer

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

Leeza Osipenko Associate Director

Meindert Boysen Associate Director

Public Health England

Prof Brian Ferguson Director for Knowledge & Intelligence

Dr Anne Mackie Director of Screening

Monitor

John Curnow Economics Project Director

Zephan Trent Impact Assessment Lead

NHS England

Dr Donald Franklin Senior Economic Adviser NHS England

Amy Lee Economic Advisor

Brunel University

Prof Martin Buxton Emeritus Professor of Health Economics

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Representing Joint Committee for Vaccines and Immunisations and Safety of Blood Tissues and Organs

Prof John Cairns Professor of Health Economics

The current Terms of Reference (agreed with ministers in February 2014) is replicated below:

Appraisal Alignment Working Group [AAWG] Terms of Reference & Objectives

The Appraisal Alignment Working Group (AAWG) is comprised of policy and analytic staff who work in, or give advice to, DH and its ALBs on the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of programmes, technologies and policies.

The purpose of the group is to share knowledge on the various techniques employed across the Health and Care sector, to discuss and debate the pros and cons of different approaches employed, to consider ways of rendering results comparable, and to understand the reasons for differences in approaches.

The working group is not a decision making body. Rather it is advisory. Individual members representing different organisations will take back recommendations and questions to their parent bodies for consideration.

It is proposed to have meetings every six to eight weeks to achieve the ‘Must Do’ (e.g. primary) objective described below.

The ‘Must Do’

Before the next Spending Review, (pencilled in for June to October 2015), it is essential the Department of Health (DH) and its Arm’s Length Bodies (ALBs) can present a consistent approach o HM Treasury (HMT) on the cost benefit of different programmes (e.g. vaccinations, screening new technologies). The cost benefit case for spending presented to HMT should follow public sector best practice as set out by HMT, in its Green Book. Therefore results of appraisals need to be capable of being expressed in HMT Green Book methodology terms (ie using the Green Book methodology as a “reference case”).

Having successfully achieved that, the Working Group will take stock and decide if the group (or some other forum) should continue and progress on three desiderata:

1. economic justification for methods employed in each area and clear rationale for when methods differ and/or diverge from HMT’s Green Book.
2. achieve greater alignment of techniques between the different sectors and organisations
3. serve as an expert panel to advise on the development and application of new techniques on an on-going basis.

This work would be less time critical and could be pursued by meetings every eight to twelve weeks.