Tag: Rosie Cooper

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to the article entitled Greed of the NHS fat cats published in the Daily Mail on 20 April 2015, whether he has instituted an investigation of salaries paid to NHS senior executives.

Alistair Burt

My Rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to all Chairs of NHS organisations on 2 June 2015 setting out a range of measures to ensure executive pay is proportionate and justifiable. He asked the Chairs urgently to review their policies on executive pay; to seek the views of Ministers before making any executive appointment paid more than £142,500 per year; to advise him of all current executive pay more than £142,500 and to provide a justification; to ensure that the HM Treasury guidance on off-payroll executive appointments is followed rigorously. He also announced his intention of introducing a limit on the rates payable to off-payroll interim executives; of introducing a national framework for deciding executive pay throughout the NHS; of clamping down on executives who retire and then return to NHS employment so that they do not gain financially from this; and set out his expectation that new redundancy terms should apply to all executive staff. We are taking this work forward.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much Professor Patricia Hart was paid in total as Chief Executive of South Tees Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; and how many days in total she worked in that post.

Alistair Burt

These are matters for the South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. We have written to Deborah Jenkins, Chair of South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, informing her of the hon. Member’s enquiry. She will reply shortly and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he has taken to encourage restraint in increases in senior NHS executive’s pay.

Alistair Burt

My Rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to all Chairs of NHS organisations on 2 June 2015 setting out a range of measures to ensure executive pay is proportionate and justifiable. He asked the Chairs urgently to review their policies on executive pay; to seek the views of Ministers before making any executive appointment paid more than £142,500 per year; to advise him of all current executive pay more than £142,500 and to provide a justification; to ensure that the HM Treasury guidance on off-payroll executive appointments is followed rigorously. He also announced his intention of introducing a limit on the rates payable to off-payroll interim executives; of introducing a national framework for deciding executive pay throughout the NHS; of clamping down on executives who retire and then return to NHS employment so that they do not gain financially from this; and set out his expectation that new redundancy terms should apply to all executive staff. We are taking this work forward.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2015-10-14.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the reasons for the difference between the water and sewerage charge per pupil in Lancashire and Kent; and if she will make a statement.

Rory Stewart

Water and sewerage charges are set by water companies in line with the overall cap set by Ofwat on the amount that each water company may recover from their customers.

Water company charges vary across regions to reflect the cost of collecting or abstracting water and treating it to meet water quality standards; building and maintaining pipes to deliver water, remove sewerage and surface water; and treating sewerage to meet environmental standards. Due to the variations in demography and geography these processes and costs vary greatly by region.

Water charges include a surface water charge to cover the costs of removing and treating rainwater that drains away to public sewers. Some water companies share these costs equally across all their customers; four companies charge their non-household customers according to property size. Charging by this method better reflects the amount of rainwater draining into the public sewer.

The Government recognised that charging in this way can have a particular impact on community groups with property covering a large site-area and, in 2010, issued guidance to Ofwat and water companies on developing concessionary schemes for these groups. Our recent consultation on draft charging guidance to Ofwat recognised that concerns have subsequently been raised about the impact of site area charging on other groups, including schools. It recognised the importance of organisations taking a more sustainable approach to drainage, but said that area based charging should result in a recognisable benefit to customers as a whole and should not have an unduly negative impact on organisations that provide a wider benefit to society. We are currently considering the responses to this consultation, and whether we should review the guidance on concessionary schemes.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2014-07-15.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what role NHS England plays in the development of advice given by the Prescribed Specialised Services Advisory Group to Ministers on which specialised services should be included in regulations setting out those services which NHS England must commission.

Norman Lamb

NHS England puts forward proposals to the Prescribed Specialised Services Advisory Group (PSSAG), and provides information to support the Group’s considerations chiefly via its Clinical Reference Groups. NHS England also provides expert members of PSSAG in areas such as finance, informatics, medicine and nursing. Further information about NHS England’s input to the process by which advice is prepared for ministers is set out in the publication "Prescribed Specialised Services Advisory Group – Recommendations to Ministers" published on 2 May 2014, which includes a complete list of PSSAG members. www.gov.uk/government/publications/specialised-service-recommendations-to-ministers In addition, as required by section 3B of the National Health Service Act 2006 (as amended), NHS England is consulted before regulations are made by the Secretary of State.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2015-01-14.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what recent assessment he has made of the extent of persecution of Christian communities in the Middle East.

Mr Tobias Ellwood

We are deeply concerned by the difficulties facing many Christians and religious minorities in the Middle East and deplore all discrimination and constraints on freedom of religion.

We are committed to supporting the fundamental human right to freedom of religion or belief. We support this right for Christian communities in the Middle East by regularly urging governments at senior levels to uphold the rights of all minorities; building international consensus on freedom of religion or belief; and supporting practical projects on community dialogue with civil society and faith groups.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2015-02-20.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 9 April 2014, Official Report, columns 261-3W, on psoriasis, what the conclusions were of the NICE Clinical Commissioning Group Outcomes Indicator Set Advisory Committee’s review of potential indicators for psoriasis derived from the NICE Psoriasis Quality Standard.

Norman Lamb

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Clinical Commissioning Group Outcome Indicator Set (CCG OIS) Advisory Committee considered the following draft psoriasis indicators, derived from the NICE Psoriasis Quality Standard, at its meeting in October 2014:

– PSO 5.1 Psoriasis: assessment for psoriatic arthritis;

– PSO 6.2 Skin disease: time off school or work due to skin disease;

– PSO 6.3 Psoriasis: skin clearance; and

– PSO 3.2 Psoriasis: Patient experience: access to secondary care services.

It was the decision of the committee that the indicators did not meet the prioritisation criteria, as set out in the NICE Indicator Process guide. The primary reason for this was that the majority of care for people with psoriasis is provided in primary care and the CCG OIS is focused on care provided in secondary care. As such, the committee has not put forward any of the psoriasis indicators for further development and testing by the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The HSCIC has not, therefore, undertaken any further work on the development of Read Codes for this topic.

The NICE indicator process guide and the NICE consultation document setting out those indicators which did meet the prioritisation criteria can be found at the links below:

www.nice.org.uk/media/03E/31/Indicators_process_guide.pdf

www.nice.org.uk/media/default/Standards-and-indicators/CCGOIS-indicator-consultation.pdf

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2015-02-20.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 1 December 2014 to Question 216131, what processes will be used to promote specialised commissioning expenditure against nominal clinical commissioning groups budgets; and how the present central NHS England budget for commissioning dialysis services will be transferred to clinical commissioning groups.

Jane Ellison

Significant work has been undertaken by NHS England to analyse current specialised commissioning expenditure patterns at clinical commissioning group (CCG) level. This CCG level monitoring will continue in 2015/16 with the aim of improving commissioning decisions.

There is no planned transfer of renal dialysis budgets from NHS England to CCGs in either the current financial year or during 2015-16. It is for Ministers to decide, with independent advice, the conditions that should be on the specialised commissioning list.

Neither NHS England specialised commissioners nor CCGs have control over capital funding for dialysis facilities and maintenance. Capital funding for renewal of dialysis facilities and equipment remains with the incumbent providers. Ensuring that these facilities are of appropriate quality is achieved through the application of detailed service specifications which form part of the contract with providers.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2015-02-20.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 9 April 2014, Official Report, columns 261-3W, on psoriasis, what indicators have been proposed to the NICE Clinical Commissioning Group Outcomes Indicator Set Advisory Committee for psoriasis.

Norman Lamb

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Clinical Commissioning Group Outcome Indicator Set (CCG OIS) Advisory Committee considered the following draft psoriasis indicators, derived from the NICE Psoriasis Quality Standard, at its meeting in October 2014:

– PSO 5.1 Psoriasis: assessment for psoriatic arthritis;

– PSO 6.2 Skin disease: time off school or work due to skin disease;

– PSO 6.3 Psoriasis: skin clearance; and

– PSO 3.2 Psoriasis: Patient experience: access to secondary care services.

It was the decision of the committee that the indicators did not meet the prioritisation criteria, as set out in the NICE Indicator Process guide. The primary reason for this was that the majority of care for people with psoriasis is provided in primary care and the CCG OIS is focused on care provided in secondary care. As such, the committee has not put forward any of the psoriasis indicators for further development and testing by the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The HSCIC has not, therefore, undertaken any further work on the development of Read Codes for this topic.

The NICE indicator process guide and the NICE consultation document setting out those indicators which did meet the prioritisation criteria can be found at the links below:

www.nice.org.uk/media/03E/31/Indicators_process_guide.pdf

www.nice.org.uk/media/default/Standards-and-indicators/CCGOIS-indicator-consultation.pdf

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2015-02-20.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 9 April 2014, Official Report, columns 261-3W, on psoriasis, what development to Read codes was found to be necessary by the Health and Social Care Information Centre to support the indicators proposed for psoriasis.

Norman Lamb

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Clinical Commissioning Group Outcome Indicator Set (CCG OIS) Advisory Committee considered the following draft psoriasis indicators, derived from the NICE Psoriasis Quality Standard, at its meeting in October 2014:

– PSO 5.1 Psoriasis: assessment for psoriatic arthritis;

– PSO 6.2 Skin disease: time off school or work due to skin disease;

– PSO 6.3 Psoriasis: skin clearance; and

– PSO 3.2 Psoriasis: Patient experience: access to secondary care services.

It was the decision of the committee that the indicators did not meet the prioritisation criteria, as set out in the NICE Indicator Process guide. The primary reason for this was that the majority of care for people with psoriasis is provided in primary care and the CCG OIS is focused on care provided in secondary care. As such, the committee has not put forward any of the psoriasis indicators for further development and testing by the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The HSCIC has not, therefore, undertaken any further work on the development of Read Codes for this topic.

The NICE indicator process guide and the NICE consultation document setting out those indicators which did meet the prioritisation criteria can be found at the links below:

www.nice.org.uk/media/03E/31/Indicators_process_guide.pdf

www.nice.org.uk/media/default/Standards-and-indicators/CCGOIS-indicator-consultation.pdf

“