Blog

  • Mary Glindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mary Glindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mary Glindon on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what discussions his Department has held with patients affected by muscle-wasting conditions on the benefits of cough assist machines.

    Ben Gummer

    The provision of cough assist machines is the responsibility of clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). Clinically led CCGs have independence and autonomy to make commissioning decisions for local populations, taking into account the available evidence and individual circumstances, as appropriate.

    The evidence base to demonstrate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the use of cough assist machines in muscle-wasting conditions is not well established. In order to improve the evidence base, the National Institute for Health Research, which is funded through the Department, is seeking to commission research on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of mechanical cough assist devices compared to other methods of sputum clearance. The deadline for outline proposals was 21 January 2016 with full proposals expected for consideration in July.

    NHS England has been working with Muscular Dystrophy UK through the Bridging the Gap project to address areas of concern raised by patients and their representatives, one of which is the provision of cough assist machines. The establishment of Bridging the Gap was supported with just under £600,000 awarded by the Department through its Innovation, Excellence and Strategic Development Fund. Through this work, a number of CCGs have now developed commissioning policies which set out the circumstances in which to consider these devices based on one developed by Walsall CCG, which has been shared nationally as an example of good practice by Muscular Dystrophy UK.

    On 26 April 2016, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, met with Muscular Dystrophy UK and a number of patient representatives specifically to hear their concerns about the provision of cough assist machines.

  • Mary Glindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Mary Glindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mary Glindon on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether his Department is taking steps to encourage clinical commissioning groups to develop a commissioning policy for requests for cough assist machines for patients with muscle-wasting conditions.

    Ben Gummer

    The provision of cough assist machines is the responsibility of clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). Clinically led CCGs have independence and autonomy to make commissioning decisions for local populations, taking into account the available evidence and individual circumstances, as appropriate.

    The evidence base to demonstrate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the use of cough assist machines in muscle-wasting conditions is not well established. In order to improve the evidence base, the National Institute for Health Research, which is funded through the Department, is seeking to commission research on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of mechanical cough assist devices compared to other methods of sputum clearance. The deadline for outline proposals was 21 January 2016 with full proposals expected for consideration in July.

    NHS England has been working with Muscular Dystrophy UK through the Bridging the Gap project to address areas of concern raised by patients and their representatives, one of which is the provision of cough assist machines. The establishment of Bridging the Gap was supported with just under £600,000 awarded by the Department through its Innovation, Excellence and Strategic Development Fund. Through this work, a number of CCGs have now developed commissioning policies which set out the circumstances in which to consider these devices based on one developed by Walsall CCG, which has been shared nationally as an example of good practice by Muscular Dystrophy UK.

    On 26 April 2016, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, met with Muscular Dystrophy UK and a number of patient representatives specifically to hear their concerns about the provision of cough assist machines.

  • 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 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to paragraph 57 of the Equality Analysis in the new contract for doctors and dentists in training in the NHS, published in March 2016, if he will implement the recommendation that a pro rata cash sum equivalent to a five per cent to 10 per cent pay enhancement should be paid to part-time doctors based on the proportion of full-time work for on-call that has been agreed in the work schedule.

    Ben Gummer

    Yes. This is explicit paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 in the Terms and Conditions of Service published by NHS Employers on 31 March 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 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to paragraph 88 of the Equality Analysis in the new contract for doctors and dentists in training in the NHS, published in March 2016, if he will implement the recommendation that flexible pay premia should apply where a doctor needs to change speciality because of a disability or the need to care for a person with a disability.

    Ben Gummer

    Yes. This is explicit in paragraphs 50-52 of Schedule 2 of the Terms and Conditions of Service published by NHS Employers on 31 March 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 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 13 January 2016 to Question 21676, whether the new junior doctors’ contract would be an improvement on the pay structure previously developed without the addition of transition protection.

    Ben Gummer

    The new Junior Doctor contract is an improvement on the current contract in the pay structure. All doctors will get equal pay for equal work, rather than being paid for time served, to create a genuinely level playing field for men and women. The contract remains within a cost-neutral envelope excluding any workforce growth and the cost of protection sits outside that; this has not changed. There are a number of improvements in the final contract from the November 2015 offer. Some were agreed with the British Medical Association during negotiations in December 2015 and January 2016 and are reflected in the summary offer of 12 February 2016 – for example, restructuring of the nodal pay points with larger basic pay increases occurring earlier in career progression. Some were as a result of the Secretary of State’s consideration of the draft final contract, as set out in the Equality Analysis, and include improvements to the transitional protection arrangements themselves, providing that the three years of pay protection be extended to six years for those working at 0.5 of whole time.

  • 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 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what guidance he plans to give to clinical commissioning groups on encouraging their move towards full implementation of NICE guidelines on fertility treatment.

    Jane Ellison

    The level of provision of infertility treatment, as for all health services they commission, is decided by local clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and will take into account the needs of the population overall. The CCG’s decisions are underpinned by clinical insight and knowledge of local healthcare needs. As such, provision of services will vary in response to local needs.

    CCGs have a legal duty to have regard to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. As such, NHS England expects that all those involved in commissioning infertility treatment services to be fully aware of the importance of having regard to the NICE fertility guidelines.

    Following a meeting with Fertility Fairness in December 2015, officials from the Department and NHS England are considering options for addressing variation in the prices that CCGs are currently paying for in vitro fertilisation treatment.

    Information about the costs of individual treatments is not collected centrally.

  • 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 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment his Department has made of the progress that clinical commissioning groups have made on implementing NICE guidelines on fertility treatment; and if he will make a statement.

    Jane Ellison

    The level of provision of infertility treatment, as for all health services they commission, is decided by local clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and will take into account the needs of the population overall. The CCG’s decisions are underpinned by clinical insight and knowledge of local healthcare needs. As such, provision of services will vary in response to local needs.

    CCGs have a legal duty to have regard to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. As such, NHS England expects that all those involved in commissioning infertility treatment services to be fully aware of the importance of having regard to the NICE fertility guidelines.

    Following a meeting with Fertility Fairness in December 2015, officials from the Department and NHS England are considering options for addressing variation in the prices that CCGs are currently paying for in vitro fertilisation treatment.

    Information about the costs of individual treatments is not collected centrally.

  • Kate Green – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Kate Green – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Green on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what funds the Government has allocated for research into progressive supranuclear palsy in each of the last three years; and what plans the Government has to allocate further funding for research to support early diagnosis of and effective treatments for that condition.

    George Freeman

    In the last three years, the Department’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has funded research relating to progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) within the overall infrastructure awards for the following biomedical research centres and units. Spend specifically on research into PSP cannot be disaggregated from total spend through these awards.

    – NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (£110.1 million; 2012-17);

    – NIHR Guy’s and St Thomas’ Biomedical Research Centre (£58.7 million; 2012-17);

    – NIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre (£48.9 million; 2012-17);

    – NIHR Cambridge Dementia Biomedical Research Unit (£4.5 million; 2012-17);

    – NIHR Maudsley Dementia Biomedical Research Unit (£4.5 million; 2012-17).

    The NIHR has launched a new, open competition for biomedical research centre funding from April 2017 to March 2022.

    The NIHR welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including PSP. 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.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Margaret Hodge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Margaret Hodge on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how he plans to ensure that an additional 20,000 patients a year will have their cancers genetically tested as part of the Government’s Cancer Taskforce strategy; and what data he plans to collect on those people who are tested.

    Jane Ellison

    The independent Cancer Taskforce recognised the need for more accessible molecular diagnostic provision in its report, Achieving World-Class Cancer Outcomes: A Strategy for England 2015-2020, published in July 2015.

    Following this, in September 2015, we confirmed a commitment from NHS England to implement the recommendations on molecular diagnostics. This will mean that around 25,000 additional people a year will have their cancers genetically tested to identify the most effective treatments. NHS England is currently working with partners across the healthcare system to produce an implementation plan to determine how best to take forward the Taskforce’s recommendations.

    Regional Genetic Laboratories are central to all NHS Genomic Medicine Centres and have been the focal point for adoption of genomic technologies into healthcare for over 40 years. These laboratories are currently the focus of an NHS England Specialised Commissioning intended re-procurement exercise, the invitation to tender for which is due to be launched towards the end of the year. The re-procurement aims to create a new genomic laboratory infrastructure for the National Health Service in England based on centralised and local genomic laboratory hubs to support rare, inherited and acquired disease, as well as the future personalised medicine requirements inclusive of molecular diagnostics in stratified medicine.

    In September 2015, the NHS England Board approved the development of a Personalised Medicine Strategy for the NHS, to be discussed at the NHS England Board in the summer.

    This work will build on the 100,000 Genomes Project, in which the NHS is a key delivery partner. The Project will sequence whole genomes from eligible patients with rare diseases and cancers. It is moving the NHS to a new model of diagnosis and treatment based on understanding of underlying genetic causes and drivers of disease and a comprehensive phenotypic characterisation of the disease (rather than deduction from symptoms and individual diagnostic tests). This will be critical in guiding the approach to molecular diagnostics.

    In addition, changes to the section 118 guidance implemented in the national tariff payment system for molecular diagnostics from April will support clinical change and practice. This includes a number of molecular diagnostic tests to be funded separately by commissioners for the first three years before being incorporated into national prices for treatment episodes.

  • Kate Green – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Kate Green – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Green on 2016-04-27.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, for what reasons progressive supranuclear palsy is not recorded as a cause of death on death certificates; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Rob Wilson

    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.