Tag: John Glen

  • John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Glen on 2016-02-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what discussions he has had with NICE on its policy on a European relative effectiveness assessment for new drugs.

    George Freeman

    In October 2015, the Department nominated the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as a partner organisation in the planned third Joint Action on Health Technology Assessment (HTA).

    NICE has advised that it has had a number of discussions with European Commission officials, as well as other partner organisations, about NICE’s participation in this planned Joint Action.

    The Department is responsible for the policy framework for the assessment of health technologies and officials remain in close contact with NICE regarding the European Union collaboration in HTA, including the proposals for the production of joint products as part of the third Joint Action.

  • John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Glen on 2016-10-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether he plans to appeal NICE’s draft guidance on asfotase alfa for treating paediatric-onset hypophosphatasia, issued in September 2016.

    Nicola Blackwood

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is currently evaluating the costs and benefits of asfotase alfa (Strensiq) for treating paediatric-onset hypophosphatasia to determine whether it can be recommended for national commissioning by NHS England.

    There has not yet been an opportunity for stakeholders to appeal NICE’s recommendations on the use of asfotase alfa for treating paediatric-onset hypophosphatasia. NICE published a second iteration of draft guidance for consultation on 22 September 2016 and the closing date for comments was 13 October 2016. NICE’s independent Evaluation Committee will now consider the comments received in response to the consultation before deciding on the next steps for the evaluation.

  • John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Glen on 2016-02-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many hospital admissions due to liver disease there were in (a) England and (b) each parliamentary constituency in the last year for which figures are available.

    Jane Ellison

    The information requested is in the attached table.

  • John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Glen on 2016-10-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that asfotase alfa is available on the NHS to all patients who may benefit from it.

    Nicola Blackwood

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is currently evaluating the costs and benefits of asfotase alfa (Strensiq) for treating paediatric-onset hypophosphatasia to determine whether it can be recommended for national commissioning by NHS England.

    There has not yet been an opportunity for stakeholders to appeal NICE’s recommendations on the use of asfotase alfa for treating paediatric-onset hypophosphatasia. NICE published a second iteration of draft guidance for consultation on 22 September 2016 and the closing date for comments was 13 October 2016. NICE’s independent Evaluation Committee will now consider the comments received in response to the consultation before deciding on the next steps for the evaluation.

  • John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Glen on 2016-02-29.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the total cost of treating liver disease was in (a) England and (b) each parliamentary constituency in the last year for which figures are available.

    Jane Ellison

    Information on the total cost of treating liver disease in England and in each parliamentary constituency is not available centrally.

    Such information as is available is from reference costs, which are the average unit cost to National Health Service hospital trusts of providing defined services to patients in a given financial year. Reference costs for acute care are collected by Healthcare Resource Group (HRG), which are standard groupings of similar treatments that use similar resources. HRGs are organised by chapters and sub-chapters, representing different body systems, and HRG sub-chapter GC describes hepatobiliary and pancreatic system disorders. The total costs in the following table, calculated from the national average unit costs and activity submitted in reference costs, will therefore include the costs to NHS hospitals of treating liver and liver related diseases, but also the costs of other related disorders.

    Estimated total costs (£ millions) to NHS hospitals of treating hepatobiliary and pancreatic system disorders, 2014-15

    Liver failure disorders

    £17.7 million

    Malignant, hepatobiliary or pancreatic disorders

    £54.3 million

    Non-malignant, hepatobiliary or pancreatic disorders

    £328.1 million

    Total costs

    £400.0 million

    Source: reference costs, Department of Health

    Notes:

    1. The following HRGs are included in the table:

    Liver Failure Disorders with Multiple Interventions

    Liver Failure Disorders with Single Intervention

    Liver Failure Disorders without Interventions, with CC (Complication and Comorbidity) Score 5+

    Liver Failure Disorders without Interventions, with CC Score 0-4

    Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Multiple Interventions

    Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Single Intervention, with CC Score 5+

    Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Single Intervention, with CC Score 2-4

    Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Single Intervention, with CC Score 0-1

    Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, without Interventions, with CC Score 6+

    Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, without Interventions, with CC Score 3-5

    Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, without Interventions, with CC Score 1-2

    Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, without Interventions, with CC Score 0

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Multiple Interventions, with CC Score 9+

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Multiple Interventions, with CC Score 4-8

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Multiple Interventions, with CC Score 0-3

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Single Intervention, with CC Score 9+

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Single Intervention, with CC Score 4-8

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, with Single Intervention, with CC Score 0-3

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, without Interventions, with CC Score 8+

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, without Interventions, with CC Score 5-7

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, without Interventions, with CC Score 2-4

    Non-Malignant, Hepatobiliary or Pancreatic Disorders, without Interventions, with CC Score 0-1

    1. These HRGs are common groupings of the International Classification of Disease (ICD-10) codes used to count the number of finished admission episodes with a primary or secondary diagnosis of liver disease or liver related disease. They also include other ICD-10 codes.

  • John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Glen on 2016-10-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what recent steps his Department has taken to help rough sleepers and homeless people.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    One person without a home is one too many. That is why we launched a new £40 million Homelessness Prevention programme to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.

    This will enable authorities to support vulnerable people, preventing them from becoming homeless, and ensuring those who do have somewhere safe to stay.

  • John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Glen on 2016-04-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, whether she has made representations to the Palestinian Authority on reported payments by that authority to Palestinian prisoners in Israel.

    Mr Desmond Swayne

    UK officials meet regularly with the Ministry of Finance and consistently lobby it at the highest levels on whether prisoner payments can be made more transparent and affordable. I raised the issue of prisoner payments in September 2015 with the Palestinian Authority Finance Minister Bishara.

  • John Glen – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    John Glen – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Glen on 2015-10-28.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many officials of his Department are responsible for work directly relating to the Department for Work and Pensions.

    Harriett Baldwin

    The Treasury’s business covers matters relating to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in a number of areas such as welfare, spending and pensions. As such it is not possible to give a definitive number of people who are responsible for work directly relating to DWP. The Treasury is appropriately resourced to achieve its strategic objectives in this area.

  • John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Members Estimate Committee

    John Glen – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Members Estimate Committee

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Glen on 2016-04-13.

    To ask the Rt. hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the Members Estimate Committee, how much Short money the UK Independence Party has claimed since May 2015; and on what dates those payments were made to that party.

    Tom Brake

    The amount of Short money available to UKIP for 2015/16 since the May general election was £605,871. The amounts claimed and paid were as follows:

    Date Paid

    Amount

    24 August 2015

    £14,833.00

    28 September 2015

    £16,434.68

    14 October 2015

    £128,034.16

    28 October 2015

    £31,870.36

    25 November 2015

    £31,870.36

    21 December 2015

    £31,870.36

    27 January 2016

    £31,870.36

    24 February 2016

    £31,870.36

    28 March 2016

    £31,870.36

    Total

    £350,574.00

  • John Glen – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    John Glen – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Glen on 2015-10-28.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what methodology his Department uses to model the deadweight assumptions used in assessing the performance of the Work Programme.

    Priti Patel

    The Department’s methodology for calculating the non-intervention level (‘deadweight’) is set out in the National Audit Office’s 2012 report on the Introduction of the Work Programme, in the Detailed Methodology section.

    https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/10121701_methodology.pdf