Fracture Liaison Services

Lord Bishop of London Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, it is very good to participate in this important debate on the fracture liaison service, especially since the issue of prevention in healthcare seems to be gathering pace. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for having moved this debate.

We have heard that the fracture liaison service identifies people at risk of osteoporosis and reduces the risk of long-term fractures. Treatment provided by the fracture liaison service is often excellent, and often nurse-led. But, as we have heard, there are just not enough of them. Like many aspects of healthcare that we discuss in your Lordships’ House, provision varies by region, and there are also other inequalities of access to these services. We know that bone density decline can be accelerated by other factors, including smoking, diet and other illness.

We often discuss the fact that those living in the most deprived areas have consistently worse health outcomes and are therefore likely to be most impacted by the lack of coverage of this service. We have already heard in the debate that another element of inequity is that osteoporosis impacts women more than men: 50% of all women over 50 are affected. Last month, a study showed that menopausal women of Chinese and black African backgrounds are almost 80% less likely to be prescribed hormone replacement therapy, and less likely to receive appropriate care during menopause. While this debate is not about hormone replacement therapy, it has a lot to do with equitable access and is therefore significant to this debate.

Fracture liaison services demonstrate genuine value for money, as we have heard, and the Government should be keen to recognise and promote this. It is through services such as these that the shift from sickness to prevention and from hospital to community will happen. Evidence shows that for every pound spent on a fracture liaison service, £3.26 is saved. Given that hip replacements take up 1 million acute bed days a year and are often preventable, rolling this out is an important decision in forwarding the Government’s agenda on the NHS.

We have heard already in this debate that many ICBs may well be ready to go with such services. However, the Royal Osteoporosis Society reported earlier this year the closing of the South Nottinghamshire Fracture Liaison Service, with the ICB citing serious financial pressures and the lack of a government mandate as reasons for stopping commissioning the service. Commissioning pressures on the part of ICBs is an issue that often comes up when we talk about prevention, particularly shifting from acute to preventive services. I know that ICBs face serious financial pressure and challenges from acute services that often override prevention; however, if the Government are going to prioritise prevention and reduce health inequalities, there must be a way for ICBs’ commissioning decisions to stand against that pressure.

I welcome the promise of 100% coverage by 2030, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister what actions the Government will take to make that happen. Will this be considered in the formation of the NHS 10-year plan, so that health inequalities can be prioritised?