Tag: Justin Madders

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-01-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 21 January 2016 to Question 22953, on which dates and for how long on each such date ACAS meetings took place between 23 December 2015 and 4 January 2016.

Ben Gummer

Following the agreement under the auspices of ACAS on 30 November, the Department and NHS Employers held negotiations with the British Medical Association (BMA) including meetings on 23 December 2015 and 4 January 2016.

On 23 December the meeting started at 10.30 am finishing at 4 pm. On 4 January the meeting started at 10.30 am but broke at 10.45 am when the BMA withdrew to consider the offer but then never returned. The meeting was intended to continue until 3pm.

On the same day the BMA announced that, contrary to the understanding of the management side negotiators, they did not feel that enough progress had been made and announced further dates for industrial action in January and February.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-02-02.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment his Department has made of whether common system failures contributed to the deaths of Sam Morrish in Devon in December 2010 and William Mead in Cornwall in December 2014; and what steps his Department is taking to address those failures.

Ben Gummer

The Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman’s report into the death of Sam Morrish, published in June 2014, made several recommendations for local National Health Service organisations involved in Sam Morrish’s care to implement. NHS England advises that these have now been implemented.

We are advised by NHS England that there has been ongoing dialogue with the Sam Morrish’s family, including their full involvement in development of an integrated care pathway for paediatric sepsis, which has been piloted in the South Devon and Torbay area and is currently being evaluated.

The (NHS England South) Regional Quality Surveillance Group is responsible for ensuring that all the national recommendations outlined in NHS England’s report on the death of William Mead, in December 2014, are implemented.

The Department will be keeping track of progress on this front.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-03-01.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to page 15 of the interim report of the Accelerated Access Review, published October 2014, what recent discussions he has had on the implementation of new models of pricing and reimbursing drugs; when he anticipates implementing such models; what discussions he has had with (a) his Department’s officials and (b) external organisations on the applicability of such models to drugs targeting the genetically validated target PCSK9; and if he will make a statement.

George Freeman

The Accelerated Access Review, chaired by Sir Hugh Taylor, will make recommendations to government on reforms to accelerate access for National Health Service patients to innovative medicines and medical technologies making our country the best place in the world to design, develop and deploy these products. The terms of the reference for the review focus on faster access to innovations, which may include drugs that target genetically validated targets such as PCSK9 and BCL2.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-03-14.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 18 January 2016 to Question 22896, whether his Department records the number of junior doctors working 91 hours or more each week.

Ben Gummer

The Department does not collect this information centrally; it is collected by local National Health Service employers.

We agreed with the British Medical Association that 91 hours’ work in any seven day period is too long and not safe. That is why, in the new contract, there is a contractual maximum of 72 hours’ work in any seven day period even for junior doctors who opt out of the working time regulations.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-04-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, for each medicine reclassified from (a) prescription only medicine to pharmacy medicine status, (b) pharmacy medicine to general sales list medicine status and (c) prescription only medicine to general sales list medicine status in the last 25 years, what the cost to the public purse was of prescribing that medicine in the three years (i) prior to and (ii) following its reclassification.

George Freeman

The Government is committed to the continued reclassification of medicines from prescription only to pharmacy classification and from pharmacy to general sales list classification when it is safe to do so and there is a clear benefit to public health. This is an important part of empowering patients to manage their own care. The Government’s medicines regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, is at the forefront of moves to reclassify medicines to non-prescription and is recognised as a leader in Europe in this regard.

Over the years reclassification has been facilitated by improving the regulatory environment for manufacturers to achieve successful reclassification of their products. Amendments to legislation were introduced in 2002 to reduce the legislative burden for reclassification; new guidance was published in 2012 to streamline the process; and in 2015 a United Kingdom platform was set up to maximise stakeholder engagement with the aim of encouraging further reclassification of medicines.

Patient safety remains the prime consideration in any decision to make a medicine available without prescription.

We are unable to calculate the total difference in cost to the public purse following these medicine reclassifications.

The attached tables contain the information for each of the last 25 years on medicines reclassified from prescription only medicine (POM) to Pharmacy (P) medicine and P medicine to general sales list (GSL) medicine. There are no examples of medicines which have been reclassified from POM to GSL. Where relevant, brand names have been included in brackets.

The lists represent the first reclassification either from POM to P or P to GSL of the product and further extensions such as wider indications, additional pack sizes or higher strengths have not been included.

Not all products listed are currently available, for various reasons, including both commercial and regulatory.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-04-27.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, by what average proportion Care Quality Commission registration fees have changed in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

Ben Gummer

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and adult social care in England. The CQC’s income is made up of both fees paid by providers and grant in aid from the Department. Government policy requires that the CQC must increase the fees it charges registered providers so that it can move towards fully recovering the chargeable costs of regulating health and adult social care in England.

The CQC has set a two-year trajectory to reach full cost recovery for all sectors with the exception of the adult social care domiciliary care sector, which will be subject to a four year trajectory and dentists who are already at full cost recovery. The Government has made available £15 million extra funding for general practice (GP) from April 2016 to reflect a number of increasing cost pressures, of which increased CQC fees are a part.

The CQC has provided the following information. The CQC has revised the fees that providers will have to pay from April 2016. The table shows how close each sector is to full cost recovery in 2016-17.

Average fee increase by sector inspected by the CQC¹

Sector	2012-13 to 2013-14	2013-14 to 2014-15	2014-15 to 2015-16	2015-16 to 2016-17	Percentage of CQC costs recovered through fees in 2016-17
NHS Trusts	0%	3%	9%	75%	67%
Adult social care – residential	0%	0%	9%	12%	96%
Adult social care – community	0%	1%	9%	72%	44%
Independent healthcare – hospitals	0%	3%	9%	12%	96%
Independent healthcare – community	0%	12%	0%	5%	98%
Independent healthcare – single specialty	0%	3%	9%	0%	96%
Dentists	6%	9%	0%	0%	100%
National Health Service GPs	n/a	2%	9%	255%	56%

¹To establish the average percentage increase the CQC has compared the fees in each fee band by category and then taken the average increase per category. In most cases the increase is consistent for each band within the category.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-05-23.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what proportion of hospitals have a policy of charging (a) blue badge holders and (b) carers for parking.

Alistair Burt

Data is not collected centrally in the exact format requested. Data on car parking is collected annually through two collections.

The Estates Return Information Collection asks whether organisations charge for the use of designated disabled parking spaces. Of the 1,038 sites that have designated disabled car parking spaces 87% do not charge.

The Patient Led Assessment of the Care Environment asks about the number of sites that offer car parking charge concessions in accordance with the National Health Service patient, visitor and staff car parking principles. Of the 372 sites that charge for car parking, 86% offer concessions, which include either free car parking or reduced charges or caps.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-06-07.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the legal status of a Sustainability and Transformation Plan will be.

George Freeman

The Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STP) has no legal basis. Any plans submitted will be proposals that will form the basis for discussion. Depending on the level of local and national agreement, they may form the basis for further plans and actions that will be subject to the same legal and best practice requirements that govern the National Health Service.

The local, statutory architecture for health and care remains, as do the existing accountabilities for Chief Executives of provider organisations and Accountable Officers of clinical commissioning groups. Organisations are still accountable for their individual organisational plans, which should form part of the first year of their footprint’s STP.

The June STP submissions will be work-in-progress, and as such we do not anticipate the requirement for formal approval from boards and/or consultation at this early stage. Plans have no status until they are agreed. When plans are ready, normal rules around engagement and public consultation will apply.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-06-14.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, which people and organisations his Department consulted (a) before and (b) after the announcement of 25 November 2015 to end NHS bursaries for nursing, midwifery and allied health professional students.

Ben Gummer

As with all policy development to inform decision making the Government received and considered a range of representations from a number of stakeholders before and after the announcement in the Spending Review, 25 November 2015.

These representations involved discussions with officials in the Department and from its arm’s length bodies, The Council of Deans of Health and Universities UK, Trade Unions, leading organisations including Royal Colleges, professional bodies and representatives from Universities.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-09-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what representations he has received on the effect of the vote to leave the EU on his policy to provide full seven-day NHS services.

David Mowat

None.