Tag: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-03-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are (1) the set up costs, and (2) the running costs, of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch.

Lord Prior of Brampton

In the first year, the setting up costs and the running costs of the Healthcare Safety Investigations Branch will be £3.6 million. The Healthcare Safety Investigations Branch will sit within NHS Improvement and therefore other costs, such as premises and back office functions, will be met by NHS Improvement.

The budgets of arm’s length bodies are agreed on an annual basis, subject to business planning. The budget for the Healthcare Safety Investigations Branch will be set through this process.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-03-22.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many patients are waiting, and for how long, for follow-up appointments in hospital with ophthalmic specialists.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The information is not available in the format requested.

The referral to treatment waiting times standard is that 92% of patients still waiting to start consultant-led treatment for non-urgent conditions at the end of each month should have been waiting within 18 weeks from referral. At the end of January 2016, there were 327,066 patients waiting to start ophthalmology treatment, 94% of whom had been waiting within 18 weeks, with an average median waiting time of 6.9 weeks. It is not known how many of these patients were waiting for a first outpatient appointment rather than to be admitted to hospital.

Information on how many patients are waiting for follow-up appointments, and for how long, is not collected.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-04-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government on what basis the contract for the existing NHS Whistleblowing Helpline has been extended, and whether they plan to further extend that contract.

Lord Prior of Brampton

We are committed to improving openness in the National Health Service and ensuring whistleblowers receive proper support. Every NHS trust will have a ‘Freedom to Speak up Guardian’ who will support whistleblowers and foster an open and honest culture. The National Guardian will lead, advise, and support the local guardians in carrying out investigations on how concerns are being handled, share good practice, report on national or common themes, and identify any barriers that are preventing the NHS from having a truly safe and open culture.

The Whistleblowing Helpline was established in 2003 by the Department of Health to provide advice to NHS staff and employers on the raising of concerns and on the protection of employees who do raise concerns. The Department holds regular meetings with the provider of the Helpline, Mencap, to keep its performance under review.

In the context of changes in the broader health and care system, such as the establishment of the National Guardian and the local guardians network, the Department is considering what role the Helpline should play in ensuring support for whistleblowers. The Department extended the existing contract to allow the Helpline facility to continue operating while future options for the Helpline are considered.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why NHS England has refused to pay the costs of making available pre-exposure prophylaxis in order to protect men from HIV.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a new use of HIV drugs which has shown clinical effectiveness in research trials at preventing HIV in people at high risk of getting HIV such as men who have sex with men (MSM) and people with HIV-positive partners. The drug used in the trials, Truvada, is not yet licenced for use as PrEP. Public Health England (PHE) has undertaken modelling work looking at cost-effectiveness of PrEP. Much depends on the price of the drugs and HIV prevalence in the target group. However, as with any new intervention, PrEP now needs to be properly assessed in relation to cost effectiveness to see how it could be commissioned in the most sustainable and integrated way and how it compares with other cost-effective approaches. The Department is considering this with PHE, NHS England and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

NHS England has agreed to carefully consider their position on commissioning pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Planning continues on the early implementer tests sites in the meantime. Irrespective of the commissioning arrangements for PrEP, decisions to fund will depend on full assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness and how it can be integrated with other HIV prevention efforts.

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 NHS of the predicted loss of 35 per cent of current clinical pharmacologist consultant posts through retirements in the next decade and the reduction in the number of training grade clinical pharmacologist posts, as set out in the report by the British Pharmacological Society, A Prescription for the NHS: Recognising the value of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

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 2016-05-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the decision to delay inquiring into wider governance issues at the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust and the role that the Trust is being asked to play in helping the re-configuration of services in Staffordshire are connected, and if so, how.

Lord Prior of Brampton

NHS Improvement advises that Verita’s report Independent review of the handling by The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust of concerns raised by and related to Mrs Haynes-Kirkbright was undertaken and published independently of Government and of any role the Trust played in the reconfiguration of services in Staffordshire. The review did not relate in any way to the reconfiguration.

The content and timing of the review into wider concerns about governance at the Trust will not be affected in any way by the Staffordshire reconfiguration.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the scope of the Cost Effectiveness Methodology for Immunisation Programmes and Procurements working group has shifted from its original purpose, and if so, why.

Lord Prior of Brampton

No, the Terms of Reference have not changed.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-09-14.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the closure of accident and emergency services at Burnley Hospital.

Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen

No such assessments have been made. The provision of accident and emergency (A&E) services at the Royal Blackburn Hospital is a matter for the local National Health Service. The NHS in East Lancashire has established an A&E delivery board to oversee system performance and the effective delivery of urgent and emergency care locally.

Ministers consult weekly with NHS Improvement and the Care Quality Commission about A&E performance.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-11-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether an additional allocation will be made to the National Health Service to compensate for the costs of the proposed increases in fees set out in the options in the consultation paper published by the Care Quality Commission on 2 November.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Government policy for fee-setting regulators is that their chargeable costs should be fully covered through their fees income, in line with HM Treasury Guidance set out in ‘Managing Public Money’.

The proposed fees increases being consulted upon for 2016-17 reflect the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) commitment to achieving full cost recovery, in line with Managing Public Money, within the period of the Spending Review. The fees being charged are therefore funding the CQC as an effective regulator. They allow the CQC’s tough inspection regime to drive up standards across the country, which in turn ensures quality and safety of health and social care provision.

The CQC’s new regulatory model, led by three specialist Chief Inspectors, provides for robust monitoring and inspection of hospitals, adult care providers and general practitioners.

Our expectation is that National Health Service providers should be able to absorb these increases within their overall income which will depend, amongst other factors, on the outcome of the Spending Review and the subsequent tariff setting process for 2016-17.

The Department has also announced that it will make up to £15 million available for general practice in order to cover this and other pressures in 2016/17.

It is for providers to ensure that they have the appropriate capacity and capability in place in order to deliver a safe, high quality service.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-11-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Prior of Brampton on 2 November (HL2987 and HL2988), what assessment they have made, if any, of whether the Chairman of the Herbal Medicines and Practitioners Working Group ignored the agreed terms of reference of that group by publishing his report without consulting the members of that group, and if so, why.

Lord Prior of Brampton

As the Herbal Medicines and Practitioners Working Group was an independent Group, governance arrangements and internal mechanisms were a matter for the Chair and its members to resolve. The remit of the Group was to consider the issues around herbal medicines and herbal practitioners, and report in 2015 with recommendations on the way forward. The overall remit was met.