Tag: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-02-09.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what procurement process was followed to commission Bain and Company to support the vanguard programme in NHS England in deciding how to invest transformation funds; what is the value of that consultancy contract; and how value for money in that contract was established.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA) commissioned Bain and Company to support vanguards as an extension to work previously commissioned from the company as part of a programme called Future Focused Finance, an initiative sponsored by the Department of Health and arm’s length bodies. This earlier work for the HFMA had focused on the design of a value-based decision effectiveness tool, piloted in Mid-Cheshire and Liverpool. The HFMA, in partnership with NHS England, commissioned the extension to this work so that the tool could be used to support value-based decision-making in the 2016-17 New Care Models programme.

Alternatives were not sought from competitors because the vanguard support built on the original Bain and Company work for the HFMA.

The value of the vanguard support contract is £650,000. Value for money was obtained by negotiation, having been benchmarked with other commissions made by the National Health Service to external health consultancies.

As part of the contract, Bain and Company will be handing over its approach to NHS England, so that NHS England can support other areas in implementing new care models.

Bain and Company has not been commissioned to assess evidence to support transformation and potential for replication of new care models in other areas. The company is commissioned to develop and implement a framework that appropriately experienced NHS staff can use to assess such evidence. Intellectual property rights in respect of the framework in the future are assigned to HFMA under the terms of the contract. The NHS is entitled to use the framework free of charge in perpetuity.

Bain and Company is involved in the development of the tool used to make the assessment, and in the implementation of the process to use that tool. The company is specifically commissioned to help vanguard sites to use the tool and to summarise the resulting value propositions to facilitate decision-making by NHS England.

No conflict of interest arises as decisions concerning funding allocations for individual vanguards are made by NHS England’s Executive Team and Investment Committee and not Bain and Company.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-02-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to enforce better compliance with the School Admissions Code among religiously selective schools in the light of the findings of the report An Unholy Mess, published by the Fair Admissions Campaign and the British Humanist Association last year.

Lord Nash

The Government is giving careful consideration to the report of the Office of the Schools Adjudicator as part of our current review of the School Admissions Code, in addition to other research and publications.

We will be conducting a full public consultation in due course and will give careful consideration to all the views expressed in that consultation.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-03-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to consider restructuring the NHS Drug Tariff Part IX on wound dressings based on their clinical performance and intended use.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The scope of the Department’s clinical specifications project is to assess wound care products available via the NHS Supply Chain to secondary care organisations. There are no plans at this time to extend this scope to include wound care products listed in Part IX of the Drug Tariff, which can be prescribed in primary care at National Health Service expense.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-03-16.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether people continue to have the right to drugs and treatments that have been recommended by NICE technology appraisals for use in the NHS if their doctor says they are clinically appropriate.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Yes. The NHS Constitution for England affirms, “You have the right to drugs and treatments that have been recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for use in the NHS, if your doctor says they are clinically appropriate for you”.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-04-13.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will ask NHS England to disband the Special Projects Team in the light of the review by David Stout into the causes of the termination of the Uniting Care Partnership Contract.

Lord Prior of Brampton

NHS England is commissioning follow up investigations into the circumstances leading up to the termination of the contract between Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group and Uniting Care Partnership LLP. It will look at the role of all of the contract advisors, including the special projects team, in more detail.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-04-18.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why there are no targets in the NHS for follow-up appointments after an initial consultant consultation.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The appropriate interval for follow up appointments will vary between different services or specialties, and between individual patients, depending on the severity of their condition. All follow up appointments (also known as planned, surveillance or recall appointments) should take place when clinically appropriate. NHS England’s guidance, Recording and reporting referral to treatment waiting times for consultant-led elective care is clear that when patients on planned lists are clinically ready for their care to commence and reach the date for their planned appointment they should either receive that appointment or be transferred to an active waiting list. At this point a waiting time clock will be started and their wait reported in the relevant statistical return. A copy of the guidance is attached.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-04-27.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the outcome, and (2) the cost effectiveness, of the use of faecal microbiota transplants in the treatment of recurrent clostridium difficile.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has produced guidance on faecal microbiota transplant for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. NICE has recommended that the procedure is safe and effective for use in the National Health Service, but no assessment of its cost effectiveness has been made by NICE.

Data on the uptake of faecal microbiota transplants in the treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile by the NHS is not collected centrally.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-05-09.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the design and running of early phase clinical trials and all phases of drugs development of the reduction in the number of consultant clinical pharmacologist posts being held in the NHS.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Figures published by the Health and Social Care Information Centre show that there has not been a reduction in the number of consultant clinical pharmacologists employed in the National Health Service in England.

As part of its workforce planning, Health Education England (HEE) take account of a range of factors including forecast rates of retirement. HEE has recently undertaken a review of the clinical pharmacology and therapeutics workforce, the findings of which will contribute to future workforce planning for this specialty in England.

It is for the respective Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to consider workforce planning for their health system.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-06-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect the final report of the Cost Effectiveness Methodology for Immunisation Programmes and Procurements working group to be published, and whether its recommendations will be subject to public consultation.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Government expects to receive the Cost Effectiveness Methodology for Immunisation Programmes and Procurement report shortly and will consider its recommendations once received. Until then, it would not be appropriate to speculate on possible recommendations or the impact they might have. We are committed to publishing their report. We will decide when to publish, and whether to consult, once we have had time to consider the report.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-07-20.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) operating differently to other health technology assessment bodies, such as NICE, as stated in the minutes of the June JCVI meeting, in the event that the recommendations of the Cost Effectiveness Methodology for Immunisation Programmes and Procurements working group are adopted.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The report of the Cost Effectiveness Methodology for Immunisation Programmes and Procurement (CEMIPP) review was received in the Department on 20 July. The Department is considering this report and its potential implications.