Tag: Rosie Cooper

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

“

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the effect of the transfer of kidney dialysis commissioning to local clinical commissioning groups on future capital funding for maintenance and renewal of dialysis facilities and equipment.

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 2014-04-30.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to bring forward proposals to expand the boundaries of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Simon Hughes

The Government has already legislated to extend the Freedom of Information Act and brought more than 100 additional organisations within scope. We are currently considering ways in which the Act can be extended further to enhance transparency.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2014-05-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the Law Commission’s draft bill on the regulation of health and social care professionals.

Dr Daniel Poulter

The Department worked closely with the Law Commission on its review of legislation governing regulation of healthcare professionals and after almost three years of review, consultation and development the Law Commission published its recommendations, along with a draft Bill on 2 April 2014.

This work will help us make sure the system is fit for the future and continues to protect patients. The Department is considering the Law Commission’s proposals with great interest and is working closely with the regulatory bodies and the Professional Standards Authority to inform our response to the Law Commission, which we will publish in due course.