Tag: Justin Madders

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-10-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the likely effect of proposed changes to pharmacy funding on home delivery of NHS prescriptions.

David Mowat

The Government’s proposals for community pharmacy in 2016/17 and beyond, on which we have consulted, are being considered against the public sector equality duty, the family test and the relevant duties of my Rt. hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health, under the National Health Service Act 2006.

Our assessments include consideration of the potential impacts on the adequate provision of NHS pharmaceutical services, including the supply of medicines, access to NHS pharmaceutical services, supplementary hours, non-commissioned services, individuals with protected characteristics, impacts on other NHS services, health inequalities, individuals with restricted mobility and access to healthcare for deprived communities.

An impact assessment will be completed to inform final decisions and published in due course.

Our proposals are about improving services for patients and the public and securing efficiencies and savings. We believe these efficiencies can be made within community pharmacy without compromising the quality of services or public access to them.

Our aim is to ensure that those community pharmacies upon which people depend continue to thrive. We are consulting on the introduction of a Pharmacy Access Scheme, which will provide more NHS funds to certain pharmacies compared with others, considering factors such as location and the health needs of the local population.

We want a clinically focussed community pharmacy service that is better integrated with primary care and public health in line with the Five Year Forward View. This will help relieve the pressure on general practitioners and accident and emergency departments, ensure better use of medicines and better patient outcomes, and contribute to delivering seven day health and care services.

The Chief Pharmaceutical Officer for England, Dr Keith Ridge has commissioned an independent review of community pharmacy clinical services. The review is being led by Richard Murray, Director of Policy at The King’s Fund. The final recommendations will be considered as part of the development of clinical and cost effective patient care by pharmacists and their teams.

NHS England is also setting up a Pharmacy Integration Fund to support the development of clinical pharmacy practice in a wider range of primary care settings, resulting in a more integrated and effective NHS primary care patient pathway.

The rollout of the additional 1,500 clinical pharmacists announced by NHS England will help to ease current pressures in general practice by working with patients who have long term conditions and others with multiple medications. Having a pharmacist on site will mean that patients who receive care from their general practice will be able to benefit from the expertise in medicines that these pharmacists provide.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-10-14.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what proportion of boys were (a) White British, (b) White British eligible for free school meals, (c) White Non-British, (d) White Non-British eligible for free school meals, (e) Black, (f) Black eligible for free school meals, (g) Indian, (h) Indian eligible for free school meals, (i) Chinese ethnicity, (j) Chinese ethnicity eligible for free school meals, (k) other Asian, (l) other Asian eligible for free school meals, (m) any other ethnicity and (n) any other ethnicity eligible for free school meals received a place in a grammar school in each of the last five years.

Nick Gibb

Proportion of Year 7 pupils in Selective schools by selected ethnic groups, gender & FSM eligibility

Boys	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
White British	3.6%	3.6%	3.8%	3.7%	3.7%
White British – Eligible for FSM	0.6%	0.5%	0.5%	0.6%	0.6%
White non-British	2.9%	2.8%	3.3%	3.0%	3.1%
White non-British – Eligible for FSM	0.3%	0.4%	0.3%	0.5%	0.5%
Black	2.3%	2.7%	2.9%	2.9%	3.3%
Black – Eligible for FSM	0.3%	0.4%	0.4%	0.5%	0.7%
Indian	13.0%	12.9%	14.0%	15.2%	15.5%
Indian – Eligible for FSM	3.0%	2.5%	2.4%	3.5%	3.2%
Chinese	18.9%	20.5%	22.4%	17.9%	18.5%
Chinese – Eligible for FSM	9.0%	12.0%	14.3%	5.8%	6.0%
Other Asian	5.9%	5.7%	6.3%	6.0%	6.4%
Other Asian – Eligible for FSM	1.9%	1.2%	1.5%	1.5%	1.8%

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-10-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to the consultation on the community pharmacy contractual framework, what estimate he has made of the number of pharmacies he forecasts will close.

David Mowat

Community pharmacy is a vital part of the National Health Service and can play an even greater role. In the Spending Review the Government re-affirmed the need for the NHS to deliver £22 billion in efficiency savings by 2020/21 as set out in the NHS’s own plan, the Five Year Forward View. Community pharmacy is a core part of NHS primary care and has an important contribution to make as the NHS rises to these challenges. The Government believes efficiencies can be made without compromising the quality of community pharmacy services including public access to medicines. Our aim is to ensure that those community pharmacies upon which people depend continue to thrive and so we have a Pharmacy Access Scheme, which will provide more NHS funds to certain pharmacies compared to others, considering factors such as location and the health needs of the local population. Our reforms are about improving services for patients and the public and securing efficiencies and savings. A consequence may be the closure of some pharmacies but that is not our aim.

The Government announced the package of reforms for the community pharmacy in 2016/17 and beyond on 20 October 2016. This included full details of how the Pharmacy Access Scheme will operate, as well an impact assessment for the package of reforms. This can be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-pharmacy-reforms

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2015-11-17.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what plans he has to ensure a more reliable train service is provided to Neston.

Claire Perry

After the Silk Commission recommendations, further powers in Transport are to be devolved to the Welsh Government. We are currently in discussion with the Welsh Government about the future of the Wales and Borders franchise, including the cross-border services such as those serving Neston.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2015-12-14.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much (a) his Department, (b) Public Health England, (c) NHS England and (d) each of his Department’s non-departmental public bodies spent on (i) iPads, (ii) iPhones, (iii) other smartphones and (iv) other tablet devices in each of the last five years; and how many of each such device were purchased in each such year.

Jane Ellison

Information about the number and cost of iPads, iPhones, other smartphones and other tablet devices purchased by the Department and its arm’s length bodies in each of the last five years is contained in the attached tables.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the capital spend on transport was per head of population in (a) Ellesmere Port and Neston constituency, (b) the North West and (c) England in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

Andrew Jones

Figures on transport capital spend per head of population can be derived for the North West and England from the HM Treasury Country and Regional Analysis (CRA).

Data on spend per head on transport is not available at the level of Ellesmere Port and Neston Constituency.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he plans to take to ensure that out-of-hours GP services have access to patients’ medical records.

Alistair Burt

Summary Care Records are being introduced to improve the safety and quality of patient care. The Summary Care Record is a single electronic record held centrally so will give healthcare staff faster, easier access to essential information and help to give patients safe treatment during an emergency or when their general practitioner (GP) surgery is closed.

55.06 million people have had a Summary Care Record created and the Summary Care Record is currently enabled in 102 out of 154 Out of Hours GP Services.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 11 February 2016 to Question 26284, what steps NHS England has taken to deal with potential conflicts of interests in the support offered by Deloitte to the development of its clinical commissioning policies; and if he will make a statement.

Ben Gummer

Deloitte is contracted to provide consultancy and advice to NHS England in support of its policy development programme for commissioned specialised services.

Deloitte is acting in an advisory capacity only and all decisions and governance processes associated with the policy development and adoption process have been retained by NHS England.

Where there has been potential for commercial in confidence information, this data and any associated analysis has been handled by NHS England alone.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Justin Madders on 2016-03-15.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much funding was allocated to Heathwatch England in each of the last three years; and how much such funding will be allocated in 2016-17 in cash terms and real terms.

Ben Gummer

Healthwatch England was allocated £4.083 million in 2013/14, £4.157 million in 2014/15, and £4.5 million in 2015/16. The figures are a combination of funding for core running costs and additional non-recurrent funding.

A final allocation for 2016/17 is yet to be finalised.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, which medicines have been 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 each of the last 25 years; for each of those medicines so reclassified what condition that medicine was designed to treat; and if he will make a statement.

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.