Tag: Rosie Cooper

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 2014-07-16.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many Lancashire residents were admitted to a mental health unit that was not their nearest facility in urgent or emergency situations because of a lack of beds since April 2012; how many such patients lived in West Lancashire constituency; and how much has been spent on private sector provision for such patients.

Norman Lamb

The data is not collected centrally.

Information on out of area placements for mental health patients in Lancashire and the costs of private sector provision for such patients may be obtained from NHS England’s Cheshire, Warrington and Wirral Area Team.

Patients may be referred out of area for specialised mental health treatment for a number of reasons. In all cases, places will be found in the nearest possible facility.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2014-07-16.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what steps he is taking to reduce the time taken to (a) process claims for personal independence payments and (b) receive a work capability assessment appointment.

Mr Mark Harper

Claimants to employment and support allowance (ESA) are not being asked to claim personal independence payment (PIP). PIP was introduced in April 2013 to replace disability living allowance (DLA) for working age people (between 16 and 64 years old) and operates an entirely separate assessment from the work capability assessment used for ESA claims. From October 2013 we have begun inviting some existing claimants of DLA to claim PIP. The current arrangements for this can be found on the gov.uk website:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-personal-independence-payment-toolkit-for-partners/the-personal-independence-payment-pip-toolkit-for-partners .

We are continuously looking at ways to increase the number of decisions made on PIP claims and to improve the claims process.

Internal DWP processes and the assessment part of the process are taking longer than expected and some claimants are taking longer than anticipated to return their claim forms but we are working closely with both PIP assessment providers as part of our plans to speed up the end to end claimant journey. We have introduced improvements in communications to claimants about the type of evidence they can supply to speed up their claim and we are taking action to support the assessment providers in clearing backlogs of work.

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Rosie Cooper on 2014-07-16.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the main reasons for the time taken to process personal independence payment claims.

Mr Mark Harper

Claimants to employment and support allowance (ESA) are not being asked to claim personal independence payment (PIP). PIP was introduced in April 2013 to replace disability living allowance (DLA) for working age people (between 16 and 64 years old) and operates an entirely separate assessment from the work capability assessment used for ESA claims. From October 2013 we have begun inviting some existing claimants of DLA to claim PIP. The current arrangements for this can be found on the gov.uk website:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-personal-independence-payment-toolkit-for-partners/the-personal-independence-payment-pip-toolkit-for-partners .

We are continuously looking at ways to increase the number of decisions made on PIP claims and to improve the claims process.

Internal DWP processes and the assessment part of the process are taking longer than expected and some claimants are taking longer than anticipated to return their claim forms but we are working closely with both PIP assessment providers as part of our plans to speed up the end to end claimant journey. We have introduced improvements in communications to claimants about the type of evidence they can supply to speed up their claim and we are taking action to support the assessment providers in clearing backlogs of work.

“

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.