Blog

  • Alex Cunningham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Alex Cunningham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what powers advocates will have during the pilot advocate scheme.

    Karen Bradley

    In January 2014 the Home Office announced proposals to trial specialist,
    independent advocates for trafficked children which is due to begin this
    summer. This trial forms part of the Government’s work to eradicate modern day
    slavery and as such there are no plans for this trial to be extended to
    unaccompanied children.

    The Child Trafficking Advocate will be fully independent from the local
    authority, but will need to work with the existing structures around the Child
    Trafficking Victim, such as children’s services, education, criminal justice
    system and immigration system.

    The advocate role is intended to deliver the best outcomes for children. The
    advocate’s role will include the following activities but this is not an
    exhaustive list and we expect the advocate to respond to the specific needs of
    the child.

    • being a consistent point of contact for the Child Trafficking Victim;
    • assisting the local authority to assess the needs of the Child Trafficking
    Victim as a victim of trafficking, thereby promoting the safety and wellbeing
    of the Child Trafficking Victim (in particular in light of the risk of
    re-trafficking);
    • making recommendations for referrals to other services (e.g. mental health
    services) to ensure the Child Trafficking Victim receives educational, medical,
    practical and legal support they need and deserve;
    • accompanying the Child Trafficking Victim to certain meetings – e.g. with an
    immigration lawyer;
    • supporting the Child Trafficking Victim in any age assessment process;
    • supporting the Child Trafficking Victim in overcoming language and cultural
    barriers;
    • supporting witnesses through the criminal justice system;
    • supporting looked after children and children in need through the care
    system, in particular in safety planning, age assessment and future planning;
    • assisting the local authority to plan for the Child Trafficking Victim’s
    future and receive any compensation that they may be entitled to;
    • helping prevent the Child Trafficking Victim from facing further exploitation
    or harm from traffickers (and the risks of going missing);
    • providing advice on immigration, criminal justice and welfare matters to the
    Child Trafficking Victim and arranging effective legal representation;
    • involvement in the key decisions relating to the Child Trafficking Victim
    (but final decisions would remain the responsibility of the local authority or
    Home Office, where relevant).

    The Home Office is commissioning an independent evaluation of the trial which
    will report six months after the trial commences. The evaluation will include
    the terms of reference for the trial.

  • Priti Patel – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Priti Patel – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Priti Patel on 2014-04-10.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate he has made of the (a) number of cigarettes, (b) volume of roll-your own tobacco and (c) value of the (i) cigarettes and (ii) tobacco smuggled into the UK in each of the last five years.

    Nicky Morgan

    Estimates of the volume and total revenue losses associated with the tobacco illicit market are published in ‘Tobacco Tax Gap estimates: 2012-13′. The figures are available in tables 4.1 and 4.5.

    These estimates cannot be disaggregated by the type of illicit activity, e.g. through smuggling, counterfeiting or other fraud.

    The methodology for producing the estimates are provided in the ‘Methodological Annex for Measuring Tax Gaps 2013′.

    Both documents can be accessed via the following page on the HMRC website:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/measuring-tax-gaps

    “

  • David Hanson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    David Hanson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Hanson on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she intends to take in response to the judgment in the High Court of 9 April 2014 by Lord Justice Popplewell on asylum support; and by what date she plans to set out that response.

    James Brokenshire

    The Government plans to review asylum support rates. That review will take
    account of the judgment and other information. The review will be completed by
    9 August 2014.

  • Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 24 March 2014, Official Report, column 120W, on haemolytic uraemic syndrome, for what reasons it was felt that further advice was needed on the overall cost implications, benefits and affordability of eculizumab; when it was first concluded that such further advice was needed; for what reasons the seeking of that advice was delayed until the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence took on responsibility for assessing highly specialised technologies; and if he will make a statement.

    Norman Lamb

    Ministers concluded that further advice was needed on the overall cost implications, benefits and affordability of eculizumab as, while Advisory Group for National Specialised Services (AGNSS) members were convinced of the clinical effectiveness of the drug, they noted the very high costs of the drug and the increasing cost profile for the National Health Service.

    AGNSS was informed of this decision on 17 January 2013. On 7 February 2013, the Department conveyed its decision to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) so that NICE could begin preparatory work in advance of taking on formal responsibility for evaluating highly specialised technologies on 1 April 2013.

    While NICE carries out its evaluation, the current interim commissioning arrangements by NHS England in line with the ‘Clinical Commissioning Policy Statement: Eculizumab for atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome’ will remain in place. The policy statement is available at:

    www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/e03-hss-a.pdf

  • Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) assesses the cost-effectiveness of an intervention when the data available are uncertain; what assessment NICE has made of the average range around the most-plausible cost-per-QALY in its technology appraisals; and if he will make a statement.

    Norman Lamb

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) follows a rigorous process in the appraisal of technologies to ensure that judgements regarding the cost-effective use of NHS resources are consistently applied. This includes consideration of the uncertainty generated where available data have serious limitations.

    When making judgements on cost effectiveness, the NICE appraisal committee will consider a number of factors including the strength of the clinical-effectiveness evidence, the innovative nature of the technology, the robustness and plausibility of the economic models, the degree of certainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), the range and plausibility of the ICERs and the likelihood of decision error and its consequences. Full details of how the Committee takes uncertainty into account is contained within sections 5.8, 6.3 and 6.4 of NICE’s Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013, which is available at:

    http://publications.nice.org.uk/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pmg9

    NICE advises that it has not carried out an assessment of the average range around the most plausible cost-per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) in its technology appraisals. We understand that although NICE usually specifies the most plausible cost-per-QALY for each technology appraisal, it does not normally specify a range for this assessment.

  • Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will discuss with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) ensuring that assessments of treatments by NICE conducted through (a) normal technology appraisals and (b) highly specialised technology appraisals is consistent in its (i) engagement with stakeholders and (ii) wider methodological approaches.

    Norman Lamb

    We have no plans to do so. As an independent body, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is responsible for developing its methods and processes and applying them consistently.

  • Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 31 March 2014, Official Report, column 491W, on medical treatments, what technology appraisals were conducted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the last five years; what the most plausible cost per quality adjusted life-year for each such appraisal was; what the estimated eligible patient population was for each appraised indication; on which appraisals end-of-life criteria were applied in each final appraisal determination; and on which date each such appraisal was (a) initiated and (b) concluded.

    Norman Lamb

    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal decisions published between 2000 to end of February 2014 have already been placed in the Library.

    NICE has advised that it does hold the most plausible cost per quality adjusted life-year for each technology appraisal, the estimated patient population for each appraised indication, details of appraisals where the end-of-life criteria were applied in each final appraisal determination and the dates each appraisal was initiated and concluded. However, this information could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  • Mark Hoban – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mark Hoban – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Hoban on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he has taken to ensure that health professionals are trained in the identification and notification of (a) all special educational needs and (b) educational needs related to cerebral palsy in children under two years of age.

    Dr Daniel Poulter

    The Government works with Health Education England, which provides leadership on the training of the health workforce, and the professional regulatory bodies, such as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which set professional standards, to ensure that health professionals are appropriately trained in identification and support of children with special educational needs, or cerebral palsy.

    Clinical commissioning groups are under a statutory duty to make arrangements to notify the local authority where a provider is of the opinion that a child under compulsory school age has special educational needs (having first discussed this with the child’s parents). The Children and Families Act introduces new arrangements for local authorities and health services to work together to support children with special educational needs.

  • Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 24 March 2014, Official Report, column 120W, on haemolytic uraemic syndrome, what discussions NHS England has had with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) since 1 January 2014 on NICE’s appraisal of eculizumab; and if he will make a statement.

    Norman Lamb

    We understand that NHS England was formally consulted on the scope of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE) evaluation of eculizumab for atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome. NHS England was also consulted on the evaluation consultation document, which was published on 27 February.

    Following the publication of NICE’s draft guidance on eculizumab, NICE sought further advice from NHS England on what considerations relating to the management of its specialised commissioning budget it considers should be taken into account in formulating a recommendation. The response from NHS England will be considered by NICE at the next meeting of the evaluation committee.

  • Luciana Berger – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Luciana Berger – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Luciana Berger on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment his Department has made of the effect that new public health structures are having on community obstetrics and gynaecology (a) workforce planning and (c) continuing professional development.

    Dr Daniel Poulter

    The Secretary of State has delegated to Health Education England (HEE) the responsibility for delivering a better health and healthcare workforce for England. HEE plans and develops the workforce to ensure a secure workforce supply for the future, balancing need against demand.

    The local education and training boards, which are sub-committees of HEE, work with local healthcare providers, including employers, to contribute to HEE’s overall future workforce plan. It is the responsibility of healthcare employers to ensure they have the right staff, with the right skills to deliver high quality care, which includes supporting their continuing professional development.