Public Health
Countess of Mar Excerpts(15 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Countess of Mar
I am awfully sorry to disturb the noble Earl and I am sorry to have to ask two very venerable noble Lords if they would mind having their conversation outside the Chamber as suggested in the Companion to the Standing Orders. I cannot concentrate on what the Minister is saying.
Earl Howe
The Statement continues:
“It will also develop health protection plans and screening programmes to protect people from health risks. Because we also know that the foundations of good health are rooted in the community, often at a neighbourhood level, we must strengthen and renew local leadership to ensure that these efforts reach deeply into communities and match their unique circumstances.
Under this White Paper, the lead responsibility for improving health will pass to local government for the first time in 40 years. We intend to give local authorities new powers to plan, co-ordinate and deliver local strategies with the NHS and other partners and to embed the foundations of good health in ways that fit local circumstances. Directors of public health will provide strong and consistent leadership within local councils.
We also intend to establish the new local statutory health and well-being boards as a way of bringing together the NHS and local government. Whereas before, public health budgets were constantly raided by other parts of the NHS, we will prioritise public health spending through a new ring-fenced budget. We will look to the highest standards of evidence and evaluation to ensure that this money is spent wisely. The new outcomes framework for public health, on which we will consult shortly, will provide consistent measures to judge progress on key elements across all parts of the system—nationally and locally. The framework will emphasise the need to reduce health inequalities and will be supported by a new health premium incentivising councils which demonstrate progress in improving outcomes.
We have learnt over the last decade that state interventions alone cannot achieve success. We need a new sense of collective endeavour—a partnership between communities, businesses and individuals, which transforms not only the way we deliver public health, but also the way we think about it.
Through the public health responsibility deal, the Government will work with industry to help people make informed decisions about their diet and lifestyle, to improve the environment for health, and to make healthy choices easier. Through greater use of voluntary and community organisations, we will reach out to families and individuals and develop new ways to target the foundations of good health. Reflecting the framework in the ladder of interventions developed by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, we will adopt voluntary and less intrusive approaches so that we can make more progress, more quickly and resort to regulation only where we cannot make progress in partnership.
This is a time when the NHS and social care are under intense pressure from an ageing population and higher costs. It is a time when we must therefore put as much emphasis on preventing illness as we do on treating it. In the past, public health has been a fragmented and forgotten branch of the health service. This White Paper will make it a central part of everything we do, and we will bring forward legislation in the new year to enact these changes.
By empowering local authorities, by strengthening our knowledge of what works and by establishing the right incentives to drive better outcomes, the White Paper will deliver the strategy and support needed to reduce health inequalities and to improve the nation’s health. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me a number of questions there. I may not be able to answer all of them now, but I will certainly write on those that I cannot.
As I mentioned earlier, it is important to recognise that in part the status of directors of public health will be confirmed by virtue of not simply being appointed locally, but also by being appointed from the centre by Public Health England. That will confer an added status to them. With the dual accountability that I referred to, primary accountability would be to their employer, the local authority, but the Secretary of State would have a backstop power to dismiss directors of public health on the basis of a failure to discharge local authority responsibilities in the area of health protection. Again, while one does not want to dwell on that power, it signifies that this is a person who will be there very much as the representative of the Secretary of State.
The noble Baroness asked what happens if there is a difference of view. Differences of view will arise but the important point to emphasise here is that we want to see them sorted out at a local level wherever possible. That will not always be possible but it should be the aim that health and well-being boards and consortia should decide, in the light of the joint strategic needs assessment and other factors, what the priorities are locally and how the budget is to be spent. It has to be that way: second-guessing from the centre is bound to lead to perverse consequences. However, there will be mechanisms available to ensure that the NHS commissioning board will have a role in trying to resolve these issues and the noble Baroness will see, when we publish the health and social care Bill, that the Secretary of State will have a backstop power in extremis.
She asked about the health premium. We will be publishing a document for discussion on this. We want to hear the views of everybody as to how this should work. Clearly, if a health premium is paid it has to reflect a measure of genuine progress in reducing health inequalities, while recognising that some areas start off with the handicap of having particularly deprived communities to work with and that the task is thereby more difficult. It is important that the department receives the views of interested parties to see how this is going to work.
On sexual health, we are looking to see what more can be done to increase the awareness of risks, prevent infection and promote access to screening and treatment. The consultation documents, which will be issued shortly, will set out the proposed funding and commissioning routes for public health services, including how comprehensive sexual health services might best be commissioned. I hope the noble Baroness will feed into that.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, the noble Earl mentioned looking at the causes of the causes very early on in his Statement. I think it is now well accepted that a foetus is not protected by either the placenta or the blood-brain barrier from environmental assaults. I am concerned that a lot of the obesity that we see now in young children who run around normally and cannot be described as couch potatoes—although perhaps their diet is deficient—may have originated in the womb from oestrogen-mimicking hormones and by chemicals such as bisphenol A and phthalates. It seems to me that we disregard these factors at our peril and we are blaming people for factors that are beyond their ability to control. Another point is the effect of maternal stress on the foetus. High cortisol levels in the mother affect the child and cause ADHD and educational problems later on in their lives. What is the Minister doing to look at what is happening to babies in the womb and the effects on them in their future life?
Earl Howe
I shall need to write to the noble Countess on exactly what work programmes are in train in that area but she is absolutely right—this is an area that I have taken a close interest in over the years. It is fundamental to understanding both health in childhood and later on in adulthood, and behaviour in children.
We fully recognise that good nutritional status is important at all stages of life. That includes the role of the diet in pre-maternal health, and affects teenagers in particular and the elderly, where there are concerns about malnutrition; I know that is not the focus of the noble Countess’s question. The national diet and nutrition survey will allow us to continue monitoring the status of the diet in the UK population and to target interventions where they are needed. I will write to the noble Countess to give her further particulars.
Health: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Countess of Mar Excerpts(15 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Countess of Mar
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what event precipitated the Department of Health decision to exclude all people who have or have had myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome from donating blood from 1 November 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, this decision by the UK blood services was prompted by a recent independent expert risk assessment of a possible link between a murine retrovirus and CFS/ME. Although the risk assessment found no evidence of a link or of a risk to transfusion recipients, the UK blood services recognised that practice for CFS/ME should be brought in line with other conditions where individuals are permanently excluded from blood donation to protect their own health.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. I offer my congratulations on the precautionary principle being called on in this instance, but ask him why the Department of Health did not say this in its press release. The notice said only that it was for the benefit of patients and no one, but no one, believed it. In the light of the findings on various viruses, not just XMRV, in the blood of patients suffering from ME, what new biological research as opposed to psychological research is being conducted into this terrible illness?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it is important to make clear to the noble Countess that no definite picture has yet emerged from the published literature on whether the virus in question, XMRV, is implicated in CFS/ME. The National Expert Panel on New and Emerging Infections has considered all the available evidence about XMRV and has reported that no public health action is required at this time. The Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs, on the basis of current evidence,
“does not recommend further measures at present, but wishes to continue to monitor the situation”.
As regards research into CFS/ME, the Medical Research Council is committed to supporting scientific research into all its aspects, including studies into the biological basis of the condition and evaluation of treatments. In 2009-10, the MRC spent £109,000 on research directly related to the condition.
Health: Neurological Conditions
Countess of Mar Excerpts(15 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has chosen an appropriate moment to table this Question and I am grateful to her. I declare an interest, as I have a diagnosis—finally—of organophosphate poisoning leading to autonomic dysfunction. I am a patron of several charities and groups that represent the interests of patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as ME or CFS, but which I will call by its common abbreviation, ME. I am also chairman of Forward-ME.
Arising from my own illness and the battle that I and others had to get the toxicity of the once-ubiquitous organophosphates recognised—a battle that I am sure the Minister well recalls—I became interested in other medical conditions, such as fibromyalgia and Gulf War illnesses, for which there was no diagnosis or treatment, let alone recognition. Foremost among these is ME. ME has been categorised as a neurological condition at least since 1968. It is recognised as such by the World Health Organisation and the United Kingdom Government. However, for all these years, sufferers from this awful debilitating illness have been ignored, derided and mistreated. The soubriquet “yuppie flu”, acquired in the 1970s, has stuck in the minds of the public and, unfortunately, in the minds of far too many members of the medical and allied health professions. Too often I hear statements such as: “Sometimes I felt that the therapist did not appreciate how physical and biological the symptoms are. She said she understood but then suggested that a lot could be cured just by thinking differently. I don’t think she really appreciated how severe the symptoms are, or that when I said I couldn’t do something I really meant that I couldn’t do it. She also talked a lot about needing to get fitter, which I thought completely missed the point”.
Many thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers from researchers around the world demonstrate that ME is a physical disease which has endocrine, immune and cardiovascular effects, as well as neurological symptoms, albeit with some of the psychological aspects common to many chronic diseases. It is distinct from chronic fatigue which is a symptom of many diseases—depression or cancer, for example. Despite this, there is a school of thought, dominant through the last three decades, that this is a psychosocial behavioural problem, easily dealt with by cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise. On many occasions I have spoken about the failure of successive Administrations to recognise ME for what it is: a chronic illness with fluctuating symptoms of unknown or uncertain origin and of variable severity. There are theories that it has its source in a viral or bacterial infection that persists and eventually affects all the major bodily systems. Others think its source may be environmental—caused, for example, by those ubiquitous toxic chemicals such as OPs, which are, incidentally, designed to attack the nervous systems of their target species. The simple answer is that we do not know.
In the UK, funding for research into ME has concentrated on its psychological aspects. There is a school of psychiatry determined to claim the condition for its own, both in the UK and internationally. After many years of working in this sphere, I have observed the means by which any valid arguments for a biological cause are mocked and eventually overwhelmed by the noisier medical opposition. They ignore internationally recognised science on the grounds that it is not scientific. They find every reason to reject small-scale scientific research projects conducted in the UK because they are not representative. Members of their own profession who have a considerable degree of success in treating patients with ME are hounded out of business. By writing numerous papers which, of necessity because there is no one else to do it, are peer-reviewed by their colleagues, they appear to have proved that there is no need for further research and that the doctors responsible for diagnosing and treating ME do not need to conduct any more than the basic range of tests on their patients.
The previous Administration did try to help patients with ME. The Chief Medical Officer commissioned a report, published in 2002, on the subject. It recognised that ME is an illness that is as chronic and disabling as MS. It recognised the shortfall in research and in NHS provision, particularly for children. The Chief Medical Officer recommended the setting-up of specialist centres to diagnose and treat people with ME—£8.5 million was allocated for the purpose. There developed small pockets of excellence where patients were pleased with the provision. These tended to be fine for patients who were able to get to the centres, usually hospital-based, but for the 25 per cent of patients who are housebound and, worse still, bed-bound, there was little help. Some health authorities were so slow that their projects failed to get off the ground before the funding had dried up; others, based on psychiatric units, were regarded with suspicion by patients. What I am saying is that, because of the way that people have behaved over this illness, patients with ME are not getting access to ancillary helpers in the NHS.
Two later reports, the latest published earlier this year by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on ME, of which I was a member, again highlighted the lack of NHS provision for patients with ME. Both reports stressed the failure of the NHS to provide for children and the severely affected. NICE, in its CFS/ME guidelines, also recognised the variable severity of the illness and the lack of treatments available. It recommends that treatment should be tailored to the patient with the patient’s consent and that allied health professionals such as physiotherapists and psychologists must have knowledge of ME and be experienced.
Current NHS treatments depend upon a multidisciplinary approach. I know from experience that a hospital referral can be very unsatisfactory unless the consultant has an open mind and looks at more than just one “bit” of a patient. All too often when a patient fails to respond to the recommended treatment, he or she is blamed for the failure and a psychiatric referral ensues. There is no passing patients on to people who might be able to help them, such as cognitive behaviour therapists. There are an estimated 250,000 people with ME, most of whom are treated by professionals with very little, if any, understanding of their illness. Since specialist services are inadequate, many patients are left to fall upon their own resources. Some are fortunate, such as the patient who said, “By understanding how I could approach my daily activities in smaller chunks and hence planning for this, including fun activities, I ultimately became stable and could build from there”, or another who said, “One-to-one supervision from a very skilled and experienced therapist kept me on track, pulled me up when I needed it and gave me encouragement. They listened to me, believed in me, reflected my progress to me at times when I couldn't see it”.
I cannot say how important being listened to and being believed are. I am pleased to see that the coalition intends that patients should have more say in the NHS provision of services. I also see that it is to discuss professional training with the royal colleges. However, until there is a cultural change among health professionals, patients with ME will continue to find it difficult to find help within the NHS. Until the professionals take time to listen to patients and to believe them, they will never develop the skills needed to enable them to help patients along the road to recovery.
I wish I had the solution to the suffering of people with ME. It seems that, no matter how often Ministers and senior officials confirm their acceptance of the seriousness of this condition, nothing will change until the culture both within and outside the NHS changes. I believe that in this particular case the patients, some of whom have experienced illness for decades while others have made excellent recoveries, have a huge amount of knowledge to impart. The Canadian guidelines to diagnosis and treatment of ME have, for reasons that have never been explained, repeatedly been rejected by health professionals and yet they are regarded by patients as providing the best course of action.
May I ask the noble Earl whether the coalition continues to accept that myalgic encephalomyelitis is a neurological illness as categorised by ICD10 G93.3? If he does, will he say how Her Majesty's Government will ensure that there is sufficient qualified medical and allied professional expertise to treat patients with illnesses such as ME with the effectiveness and dignity they deserve?
Health: Government Spending
Countess of Mar Excerpts(15 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
My Lords, strictly speaking, primary care trusts are not considered to be arm’s-length bodies, but the coalition agreement, which I am sure the noble Lord has read from cover to cover, indicates the new role and the functions envisaged for PCTs. Further details of our plans will be announced very soon.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, will the Minister be prepared to consider joining together animal and human medicines and health? With global warming, with so many of our illnesses now zoonoses—in other words, caused by animals—and with so many antibiotics and other drugs used in common, would it not be a good idea?