Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what their rationale is for increasing the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) cost-effectiveness thresholds for assessing new medicines to £25–30,000 per quality-adjusted life year; and whether they plan to apply the same proportionate increases to the NICE cost-effectiveness thresholds for highly specialised technologies.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
We have reached a landmark agreement with the United States of America that secures a preferential tariff rate of 0% for all pharmaceuticals exports to the US for at least three years, and preferential terms for the United Kingdom’s medical technology exports, meaning no additional new tariffs on medical technology. This means that, unlike anywhere else in the world, life sciences companies exporting medicines from the UK to the US will face no tariffs to do so, protecting jobs and investment in the UK.
The agreement will see the National Health Service invest approximately 25% more in innovative treatments which will be achieved through an increase to the standard cost-effectiveness threshold that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) uses and a change to the way in which NICE values health benefits to better reflect societal preferences.
There are currently no plans to increase the cost‑effectiveness threshold for the highly specialised technologies (HST) programme. The HST programme already operates at a much higher threshold than standard NICE technology appraisals, reflecting the challenges of bringing treatments for very rare conditions to market, and NICE has been able to recommend nearly all the treatments that have been evaluated through the HST programme for NHS use.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of adjusting the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness thresholds for highly specialised technology in line with the new single technology appraisal cost-effectiveness thresholds due to come into effect from April.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
We have reached a landmark agreement with the United States of America that secures a preferential tariff rate of 0% for all pharmaceuticals exports to the US for at least three years, and preferential terms for the United Kingdom’s medical technology exports, meaning no additional new tariffs on medical technology. This means that, unlike anywhere else in the world, life sciences companies exporting medicines from the UK to the US will face no tariffs to do so, protecting jobs and investment in the UK.
The agreement will see the National Health Service invest approximately 25% more in innovative treatments which will be achieved through an increase to the standard cost-effectiveness threshold that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) uses and a change to the way in which NICE values health benefits to better reflect societal preferences.
There are currently no plans to increase the cost‑effectiveness threshold for the highly specialised technologies (HST) programme. The HST programme already operates at a much higher threshold than standard NICE technology appraisals, reflecting the challenges of bringing treatments for very rare conditions to market, and NICE has been able to recommend nearly all the treatments that have been evaluated through the HST programme for NHS use.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of increasing the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence highly specialised technology cost-effectiveness threshold on patient access to rare disease medicines.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
We have reached a landmark agreement with the United States of America that secures a preferential tariff rate of 0% for all pharmaceuticals exports to the US for at least three years, and preferential terms for the United Kingdom’s medical technology exports, meaning no additional new tariffs on medical technology. This means that, unlike anywhere else in the world, life sciences companies exporting medicines from the UK to the US will face no tariffs to do so, protecting jobs and investment in the UK.
The agreement will see the National Health Service invest approximately 25% more in innovative treatments which will be achieved through an increase to the standard cost-effectiveness threshold that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) uses and a change to the way in which NICE values health benefits to better reflect societal preferences.
There are currently no plans to increase the cost‑effectiveness threshold for the highly specialised technologies (HST) programme. The HST programme already operates at a much higher threshold than standard NICE technology appraisals, reflecting the challenges of bringing treatments for very rare conditions to market, and NICE has been able to recommend nearly all the treatments that have been evaluated through the HST programme for NHS use.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 5 January (HL13176), what safeguards they plan to put in place to ensure that integrated care boards are subject to proper scrutiny, particularly in relation to the incorporation of patient engagement work into the commissioning of services.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Integrated care boards currently have a statutory duty in relation to public involvement and consultation and are subject to an annual assessment by NHS England of their functions.
The abolition of Healthwatch England and Local HealthWatch arrangements will require primary legislation and is subject to the will of Parliament.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with Healthwatch England about making public comments regarding the Government's decision to transfer its current role to the proposed new patient experience directorate in the Department of Health and Social Care.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government has accepted the recommendations of Dr Penny Dash’s Review of patient safety across the health and care landscape and confirmed in its 10-Year Health Plan for England that the strategic functions of Healthwatch England will transfer to a new patient experience directorate within the Department. This change is intended to strengthen the role of patient voice by embedding it at the centre of a reformed Department.
The Department continues to engage with Healthwatch England as this work progresses. Discussions with Healthwatch England have not included the making of public comments about the transfer of Healthwatch England functions to the proposed patient experience directorate.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking, when implementing the recommendations of the Review of patient safety across the health and care landscape, to ensure that integrated care boards are properly scrutinised by an independent patient body when they propose a major change to their services.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government has accepted the Dash review recommendations and will abolish Healthwatch England and Local Healthwatch (LHW) in their current form.
We are proposing to place responsibility for the health function of LHW with integrated care boards (ICBs). ICBs will ensure the functions are incorporated in provider organisations alongside existing patient engagement work such as Patient Participation Groups. Local authorities will be responsible for the social care LHW functions.
However, the abolition of Healthwatch England and LHW arrangements will require primary legislation and is subject to the will of Parliament. Details of how any proposed changes will impact ICBs will be developed in due course.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking, when implementing the recommendations of the Review of patient safety across the health and care landscape, published on 7 July, to ensure that each integrated care board (ICB) appoints an executive director who is responsible for patient experience and is directly accountable to the chair of an ICB.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government has accepted the Dash review recommendations and will abolish Healthwatch England and Local Healthwatch (LHW) in their current form.
We are proposing to place responsibility for the health function of LHW with integrated care boards (ICBs). ICBs will ensure the functions are incorporated in provider organisations alongside existing patient engagement work such as Patient Participation Groups. Local authorities will be responsible for the social care LHW functions.
However, the abolition of Healthwatch England and LHW arrangements will require primary legislation and is subject to the will of Parliament. Details of how any proposed changes will impact ICBs will be developed in due course.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to ensure that a nationally-determined and ring-fenced budget is maintained for each integrated care board, to fund community and user input, when they implement the recommendations of the Review of patient safety across the health and care landscape in relation to local Healthwatch.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government has accepted the Dash review recommendations and will abolish Healthwatch England and Local Healthwatch (LHW) in their current form.
We are proposing to place responsibility for the health function of LHW with integrated care boards (ICBs). ICBs will ensure the functions are incorporated in provider organisations alongside existing patient engagement work such as Patient Participation Groups. Local authorities will be responsible for the social care LHW functions.
However, the abolition of Healthwatch England and LHW arrangements will require primary legislation and is subject to the will of Parliament. Details of how any proposed changes will impact ICBs will be developed in due course.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking, when they implement the recommendations of the Review of patient safety across the health and care landscape in relation to local Healthwatch, to ensure that concerns about the quality of care can be raised with the Care Quality Commission.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) currently gathers views through the Give Feedback on Care section on the CQC website, which allows people who use services or staff to submit experiences or concerns about a service.
The feedback gathered helps to shape the CQC’s regulatory activity and allows them to identify issues and themes in the quality of care. During their inspections, the CQC will consider information from a variety of sources, which includes feedback received from members of the public regarding their experience of a service, or the experience of someone they represent.
We are not proposing to change this as part of the implementation of the recommendations in the report on the review of patient safety across the health and care landscape.
Asked by: Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking, when they implement the recommendations of the Review of patient safety across the health and care landscape in relation to Healthwatch England, to ensure that there is an independent voice for patients at a national level.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
As set out in the Dash Report and the 10-Year Health Plan for England, the strategic functions of Healthwatch England will transfer to a new directorate for patient experience within the Department.
We are committed to ensuring that the patient voice is not only heard but embedded at the highest levels of our leadership and decision-making structures. By creating clear routes for patient insight, feedback, and lived experience to directly influence senior leaders at the national level, we will ensure that policies, strategic priorities, and service design will be shaped by what matters most to the people who use health services.