Tag: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-05-03.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the costs of running different education systems in respect of local education authority maintained schools, academies, and free schools.

Lord Nash

The current dual system, where maintained schools and academies (including free schools) have different requirements on a number of key areas including funding, financial compliance, performance oversight, parental complaints and how they are required to adhere to legislation, does not provide consistent expectations on professionals or clarity and assurance for pupils and parents.

This government believes a single system with all schools as academies, which affords greater autonomy to professionals and is governed by a single legal framework along with clear and robust accountability, will provide a level playing field for all and the conditions for future success. It will give clarity on roles and responsibilities and secure efficiency. Running a dual system diverts resources, time and focus away from the classroom.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-05-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they plan to take in the light of the findings of the independent review of the handling by the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust of concerns raised by and related to Mrs Haynes-Kirkbright.

Lord Prior of Brampton

These are matters in the first instance for NHS Improvement. The Verita report, Independent review of the handling by The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust of concerns raised by and related to Mrs Haynes-Kirkbright, was commissioned by the NHS Trust Development Authority – a forerunner organisation – independently of Government.

NHS Improvement is commissioning a governance review to consider issues highlighted by the Verita report. A copy of the terms of reference for the new governance review are attached.

Verita was originally requested (under specific terms of reference) to review and provide a dedicated report on the handling by the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust of concerns raised by and related to Mrs Haynes-Kirkbright. Governance issues that fell outside of those terms of reference will be considered in the new review, to ensure thorough investigation.

The new review will take into account evidence provided by Mrs Haynes-Kirkbright and others in the course of the Verita review.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-07-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they are making in ensuring that the NHS collects data on whether return out-patient appointments are being delayed beyond the clinically recommended time due to insufficient capacity or targets for new patients that are prioritised over returns.

Lord Prior of Brampton

There are no plans to collect additional data on out-patient appointments.

Many patients will require further planned stages of treatment after their waiting time clock has stopped. This treatment should be undertaken without undue delay and in line with when it is clinically appropriate and convenient to the patient to do so.

Patients requiring initial or follow-up appointments for clinical assessment, review, monitoring, procedures or treatment must be given a clear expectation of the timeframe for this, as required by best clinical evidence. If the planned procedure is then delayed beyond that timeframe, a new waiting time clock should start and be reported in the waiting time statistics, to ensure that these patients are kept in sight.

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 waiting times for treatment in the accident and emergency department of the Royal Blackburn 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 2015-10-29.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government who are the members of, and what are the terms of reference for, the Department of Health’s Appraisal Alignment Working Group.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The current membership of the Appraisal Alignment Working Group is as follows:

Department of Health

Keith Derbyshire (Chair) Chief Analyst and Chief Economist

Danny Palnoch Senior Economic Adviser

Peter Bennett Senior Operational Research Scientist

Dr Mark Bale Deputy Chief Medical Officer

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

Leeza Osipenko Associate Director

Meindert Boysen Associate Director

Public Health England

Prof Brian Ferguson Director for Knowledge & Intelligence

Dr Anne Mackie Director of Screening

Monitor

John Curnow Economics Project Director

Zephan Trent Impact Assessment Lead

NHS England

Dr Donald Franklin Senior Economic Adviser NHS England

Amy Lee Economic Advisor

Brunel University

Prof Martin Buxton Emeritus Professor of Health Economics

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Representing Joint Committee for Vaccines and Immunisations and Safety of Blood Tissues and Organs

Prof John Cairns Professor of Health Economics

The current Terms of Reference (agreed with ministers in February 2014) is replicated below:

Appraisal Alignment Working Group [AAWG] Terms of Reference & Objectives

The Appraisal Alignment Working Group (AAWG) is comprised of policy and analytic staff who work in, or give advice to, DH and its ALBs on the cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of programmes, technologies and policies.

The purpose of the group is to share knowledge on the various techniques employed across the Health and Care sector, to discuss and debate the pros and cons of different approaches employed, to consider ways of rendering results comparable, and to understand the reasons for differences in approaches.

The working group is not a decision making body. Rather it is advisory. Individual members representing different organisations will take back recommendations and questions to their parent bodies for consideration.

It is proposed to have meetings every six to eight weeks to achieve the ‘Must Do’ (e.g. primary) objective described below.

The ‘Must Do’

Before the next Spending Review, (pencilled in for June to October 2015), it is essential the Department of Health (DH) and its Arm’s Length Bodies (ALBs) can present a consistent approach o HM Treasury (HMT) on the cost benefit of different programmes (e.g. vaccinations, screening new technologies). The cost benefit case for spending presented to HMT should follow public sector best practice as set out by HMT, in its Green Book. Therefore results of appraisals need to be capable of being expressed in HMT Green Book methodology terms (ie using the Green Book methodology as a “reference case”).

Having successfully achieved that, the Working Group will take stock and decide if the group (or some other forum) should continue and progress on three desiderata:

1. economic justification for methods employed in each area and clear rationale for when methods differ and/or diverge from HMT’s Green Book.
2. achieve greater alignment of techniques between the different sectors and organisations
3. serve as an expert panel to advise on the development and application of new techniques on an on-going basis.

This work would be less time critical and could be pursued by meetings every eight to twelve weeks.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will ensure that NHS Improvement ring-fences its activities in relation to NHS Foundation Trusts in order to fulfil statutory provisions, in particular those in the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

Lord Prior of Brampton

NHS Improvement will bring together Monitor, the NHS Trust Development Authority, and patient safety and improvement functions from across the health system, under a single leadership and operating model. These arrangements will not change the current statutory duties of Monitor or any of the other bodies involved.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-11-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential savings to the budgets of Clinical Commissioning Groups from the use of the drug bevacizumab in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration instead of ranibizumab.

Lord Prior of Brampton

No assessment of the potential savings to clinical commissioning group budgets has been made as there are two other effective licensed treatments for wet age-related macular degeneration recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2015-12-02.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action can be taken by a local authority or a successful provider when a contractor appointed to enable a local healthwatch to be established and run does not respect the distinction between its role and the local healthwatch organisation being run by that provider.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Local authorities are responsible for making contractual arrangements for local Healthwatch statutory activities to be delivered in their area. As commissioners of the service, we expect local authorities to manage their contracts in order to ensure the local Healthwatch is able to operate effectively.

The Local Government Association has published guidance to support local Healthwatch and local commissioners to put in place good governance arrangements, which includes clarity about the roles of all parties involved. A copy has been attached.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether educational and patient-orientated organisations were involved in the planning of the NHS Supply Chain generic project plans for a national formulary for wound care.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Clinical Specification Working Group has academic representation on the group from England and Wales. Patient orientated organisations may be involved, as appropriate, at an evaluation stage though they have not engaged with them at this point.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-01-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the membership and terms of reference of the investigation commissioned by NHS England into the circumstances leading up to the termination of the contract between Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group and UnitingCare Partnership to deliver urgent care for the over-65s and adult community services.

Lord Prior of Brampton

NHS England advises that it has commissioned David Stout OBE to carry out an independent review of the contract between Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group and UnitingCare Partnership. The terms of reference are to establish, from a commissioner perspective, the key facts and root causes behind the termination of the contract in December 2015 and to draw out recommendations and lessons to be learned. This will include a review of documentation and discussion with staff members.

Relevant individuals will be contacted during the course of the review to inform the findings. NHS England is also setting up a web page which will include an email address where comments and responses can be submitted. This will enable the public to contribute.

The review is expected to start in January and to be completed in February 2016. NHS England plans to publish the review when complete.