Tag: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-12-22.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what account they will take of the representations by the Wound Care Alliance UK regarding the NHS Supply Chain generic project plans for a national formulary for wound care.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The NHS Supply Chain is co-ordinating the production of clinical specifications by a Clinical Specifications Working Group, who are representing their customers in capacity of experts in wound care. This group, the Clinical Specifications Working Group, is independent of the NHS Supply Chain set up by the Clinical Reference Board.

The Clinical Specification Working Group has engaged with various stakeholders, including the Tissue Viability Society, in the process and will ultimately approve the resultant specifications.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-01-12.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they are ensuring that the Lead Provider Framework procurement process is not used to continue employing expensive management consultants.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) will make decisions about their requirements when procuring services from the Lead Provider Framework and evaluate responses in order to appoint to the provider that represents the highest quality and best value for money.

The Framework contains nine accredited lead providers that bring together a range of partners and specialist organisations in analytical and intelligence services, contracting and transformation to ensure CCGs can source a diverse range of skills and expertise on a more efficient basis than employing management consultants.

NHS England created the Lead Provider Framework to enable CCGs to access affordable commissioning support from at scale providers so they would not have to rely on expensive management consultants sometimes of variable quality.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-01-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the planned replacement of student bursaries by loans, how many grants for higher cost students will be made to universities in respect of degree courses in nursing in 2017–18.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park

Institutional autonomy and academic freedom are key strengths of our higher education system. To protect these, the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 prohibits Ministers from being involved in decisions about funding for individual institutions or particular courses. Details on teaching grant funding will be set out in the normal way in the annual grant letter from ministers to The Higher Education Funding Council.

As part of the changes announced at the Spending Review, we will lift the cap on the number of students that can get on to nursing courses and provide nursing students with access to around 25% more financial support. We expect this reform to enable universities to provide up to 10,000 additional nursing, midwifery and allied health training places over this parliament.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether students qualify for the NHS Low Income Scheme.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The NHS Low Income Scheme provides income-related help with health costs to students, as for all other adults.

The extent of any help is based on a comparison between a person’s weekly income and requirements at the date they apply to the NHS Low Income Scheme. For a student, income will include any maintenance grant or loan available, the assessment of which may be based on parental income, and the amount of parental contribution assessed by an education authority as payable. Any other income a student may have, such as non-assessed contributions from parents or earnings, will also be taken into account in calculating entitlement. Bursaries will not be included so long as they are clearly not intended for day to day living expenses.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-02-08.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much money is being spent by NHS Improvement on a re-design of that organisation.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The forecast spend for the design of NHS Improvement is £800,000. This includes the development of a single organisational structure and new operating model to better support the National Health Service to drive improvements.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-02-29.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of research presented to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science concerning the impact of hearing loss on the development of dementia, they will instruct Clinical Commissioning Groups to stop restricting access to hearing aids.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Department does not issue advice to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) on hearing aid provision. CCGs are responsible for the provision of conventional hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss within their local population. As with other services CCGs commission, they should take into consideration assessments of local need and any relevant clinical guidance from appropriate national bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-03-14.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will ensure that their review of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group contract with UnitingCare LLP for older people’s and adult community services will deal objectively with the role of the Department of Health and NHS England, in the light of the fact that both organisations undertook Gateway reviews of the contract proposals.

Lord Prior of Brampton

NHS England is responsible for the review of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough clinical commissioning group’s (CCGss) contract with UnitingCare LLP. NHS England advises that it has commissioned an independent review to ensure objectivity. The review is looking at the contract from a commissioning perspective, which means it will cover the role of NHS England, but the role of the Department is not within its scope.

The Department’s role in gateway reviews was to facilitate the review on behalf of the project owner. The procedure was that the Department’s Health Gateway Team, working with the project owner, selected a suitable review team from a pool of accredited, independent reviewers. At the end of the review, the independent review team produced a report which was presented to the project owner and was their property. The Department stopped providing this service in 2015.

NHS England advises that the CCG, as the project owner, used the Department’s Health Gateway Team to facilitate three independent gateway reviews into its procurement for older people’s and adult community services, two in 2013 before the submission of final bids and the third in November 2014. NHS England advises that these gateway reviews were not intended to undertake detailed financial reconciliation.

NHS England advises that it facilitated two gateway reviews in early 2014, before the appointment of the preferred bidder. These focused on reviewing significant service changes from a clinical pathway perspective. They were not intended to cover procurement and technical financial details.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the leadership of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Government has expressed its concern on behalf of patients about some of the things that have been happening. It is important that patients have confidence in the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, but the Ombudsman is independent of Government, accountable directly to Parliament. This is therefore a matter for the relevant Select Committee of the House of Commons.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-04-14.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what mitigating actions they propose to take in the light of the equality analysis undertaken under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 showing that certain features of the new contract for doctors in training will have an adverse impact on carers, who are disproportionately women.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The contract published on 31 March is a huge step forward for achieving fairness for all trainee doctors. For the first time junior doctors will be paid and rewarded solely on the basis of their own hard work and achievement and pay progression will be linked to level of training rather than arbitrarily to time served.

All junior doctors should have the same terms and conditions – a level playing field – which is ultimately what employers and the British Medical Association (BMA) want and everyone deserves.

When the Secretary of State published the Equality Analysis on the new contract for doctors and dentists in training in the NHS (“Doctors”) on the 31 March 2016 on the GOV.UK website he made it clear that, as a result of considering the Equality Analysis, in accordance with his duties and obligations, he had asked for a number of changes to the draft contract to address specific issues for certain groups with protected characteristics. This has been done and the contract has been duly amended. These changes included changes that benefited staff who work part time. The new contract is not discriminatory it ensures that all junior doctors receive equal pay for work of equal value. The BMA’s own lawyers have advised that nothing in the new contract is discriminatory. Nevertheless the equality duty is an ongoing duty and it is intended that monitoring will continue after the introduction of the new contract in accordance with the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010.

A copy of the Equality Analysis is attached.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-04-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what evaluation has been undertaken to ensure that the £200 million National Transformation Fund for 2015–16 provided value for money.

Lord Prior of Brampton

For the new care models programme, vanguards were selected based on a transparent and rigorous process, which considered the full range of value that they could deliver for their patients and for the wider National Health Service.

New care model vanguards were required to submit ‘value propositions’ making the case for investment from the transformation fund. Money was only released once these were assessed, and approved.

National support was designed based on what the vanguards said they needed to support them to deliver, and included work with them to develop a robust monitoring and evaluation framework. The national support helped ensure that vanguards are well positioned for success, and checks that money has been spent as planned, quarterly in arrears.

An independent, multi-year evaluation will examine the longer-term impact of the new care models programme and its cost effectiveness.

Other transformation programmes (for example, the Diabetes Prevention Scheme or the Healthy New Towns programme), not directly connected with the new care models programme, each have their own evaluation work-streams based on similar principles to those being used in the new care models programme. The results from these evaluations are not yet available as the implementation of these programmes has just begun.