Health and Care Bill

Debate between Anne Marie Morris and Jonathan Ashworth

Report stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for the time he gave me to consider my amendments, which we discussed in some detail, and I thank Her Majesty’s Opposition who, very kindly, took some of my amendments through Committee, sadly unsuccessfully. Tonight I hope to have the opportunity myself to explain why these amendments are so important. Before the House thinks, “Oh my goodness, how can we possibly deal with that many clauses and amendments?” let me say that I will endeavour to be brief. I rise to speak to new clause 33, and amendments 21, 22, 19, 16, 17, 20, 18 and 23—but I will be brief.

Let me divide my remarks into four topic areas: domestic abuse, mental health, access to medicines, and research. New clause 33 deals with domestic abuse. That is a horrific crime. It is insidious, it is hidden, and it is on the rise, and during the pandemic it has, sadly, grown from strength to strength. I say, pointedly, that this is a hidden crime, and at the moment, all the teeth are with the police. However, the police can deal only with very evident crime.

Where does domestic abuse first appear? It is in a doctor’s surgery, or at accident and emergency. To date, however, there is no obligation on clinical commissioning groups, integrated care boards or hospitals to come up with a strategy to address that horrific ill. New clause 33 would place a new obligation on ICBs to put in place a proactive strategy to properly manage that issue, and to introduce the education and training that GPs and those in hospitals and A&E need. We must ensure that we no longer find, as in the Safelives report, that those experiencing domestic abuse will have experienced it for three years before it is picked up, despite having already been to visit their GPs almost five times. I do not believe that that is acceptable in a civilised society such as the one we have today.

Five and a half per cent. of adults between 16 and 74 experience such abuse, and the Home Office has determined that the cost of that was £66 billion in 2016-17. Of that, £2.3 billion was the cost to the health service. We know that 23% of those who are at risk attend A&E, and yet nothing happens. I am fortunate that in Devon we have a pilot. My CCG is the only one in the country to have a dedicated individual on the board who specifically oversees and sets a dedicated strategy on this issue. The estimate from the pilot so far reckons that if we spent £450,000 a year on our GPs in Devon, we would get a return of £7 million. But this is not about money; this is about what is the right thing to do. Until this measure is on the statute book, and until there is an obligation to put in place a strategy, this will not change, and I cannot sit here and accept that.

Let me turn to mental health. For many years and in many documents, we have seen a commitment to parity of esteem, but I have been through every statute on the book and at no point is there any reference to the words “parity of esteem for mental health”. If parity of esteem for mental health is not on the statute book, how can we say we believe in it? If it is not on the statute book, how can we possibly measure it? Currently, there are very few measures of inputs or outputs—or, worse, of outcomes —for those going through the mental health system. There are some, but they are minuscule compared with what we have for physical health.

Amendment 23 to clause 19 would require each ICB to compare the inputs and outputs on physical health and mental health. Each ICB would be required to set out: the number of patients presenting with physical symptoms and with mental symptoms; the waiting times for initial assessment in physical health and in mental health; the waiting times for treatment in physical health and in mental health; the number of patients actually receiving treatment in physical health and in mental health; and, finally, reports on readmissions. I know that Ministers do not like that level of detail, but how important is this? Without some very specific measures, it will not happen. What gets measured generally gets done.

Amendment 23 would also require the ICBs to report against the very few national standards that there are. At least then we would see what they were; we would shine a bright light on the fact that there are so few for mental health while there are numerous for physical health. The Secretary of State would be required to consolidate those reports into a national report, which would have to be presented to Parliament—to both the Commons and the Lords. What is there for Ministers not to like about that amendment? What is there for those on the Opposition Benches not to like about it?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

We like it!

[Anne Marie Morris]

Then I would like to see you wishing to press it to a vote and putting your vote—and your feet—where your mouth is. [Interruption.] I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is not your mouth. I was carried away by an overwhelming desire to get my point across, and I apologise most profoundly.

I turn to access to medicines. Most Members believe, do they not, that medicines that have been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence are available to all our constituents? The reality is that they are not. A medicine may have gone through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and been proved to be safe, and through NICE and been said to be cost-effective, but each CCG—each ICB, as they will be—and hospital trust, and every other NHS body responsible for prescribing, sets its own formulary, and those formularies do not include all NICE drugs. If a medicine is not on the formulary, then no consultant or GP will be able to get reimbursement, so they will not be allowed to prescribe it.

In my constituency, a number of individuals have come to me because they cannot get access to a particular medicine, yet people in another constituency can. I do not believe that a postcode lottery is right. We all talk about the NHS, and health and care, being free at the point of delivery, and we all assume that we can get access, whether to GPs or to hospitals, but I do not think it occurs to most of us—it had not occurred to me—that we cannot necessarily get access to medicines.

My amendment 21 to clause 15 would effectively oblige every ICB, where any individual patient has the advice of their clinician that they should have a particular medicine and it has been approved by NICE, to make provision to ensure that that medicine is provided—perhaps from a neighbouring ICB, taking advantage of the duty to collaborate across ICBs. That would ensure that even if a medicine was not on the formulary in the area of an individual ICB, it could be obtained from another area. Bear in mind that there is no financial loss in doing that, because all NICE-approved drugs are subject to a voluntary pricing agreement between the pharmaceutical companies and NHS England. Under that agreement, x number of drugs will be provided at an agreed cost. Anything above that will be reimbursed by the drug company, so the Government and the NHS will not be out of pocket. Why would that not be a good clause? To provide belt and braces, under amendments 20 and 22, all NICE treatments would automatically be added to all formularies within 28 days of market authorisation and every ICB would be obligated to report.

My last area—I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker—is research, which is so important, as we discovered during the pandemic. I would like to draw the attention of the House to some of the challenges. Some of the anti-viral solutions to coronavirus were late to market because we could not get the clinical trials. Why? Because we could not get access to the records of the patients who had had covid or been diagnosed with covid so that we then had the appropriate cohort to be able to test the anti-virals. It therefore seems very clear that research must be taken on board across every hospital trust and across every ICB. If every ICB and hospital trust had in place a system to ensure research was part of their DNA—that they had to report on what research they were undertaking and had an obligation, if they were asked and had the appropriate cohort, to recruit the patient base so that particular clinical trials could take place—we would get more medicines faster to market. I think most people would say that that was a win.

Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations

Debate between Anne Marie Morris and Jonathan Ashworth

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Ashworth]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. There have indeed been reports of shortages in certain medicines. In recent weeks, we have heard of shortages of Naproxen, an arthritis medicine, with similar reports about EpiPens a few weeks ago. I have heard from some community pharmacists, directly themselves, that there is even an shortage of aspirin. I emphasise that these are anecdotal reports rather than information based on any national reporting that I have seen—this is what community pharmacists have told me when I have been in their pharmacies discussing this with them—but yes, there are shortages now as a result of the uncertainty in the pharmaceutical market.

Diabetes UK has warned that

“despite reaching out directly to the Department of Health and Social Care in December, we still have not seen the concrete detail needed to reassure us—or people with diabetes—that the UK Government’s plans are robust enough to guarantee no impact on insulin and medicine supplies in the event of a no-deal Brexit.”.

It was a similar story from the epilepsy bodies, who said:

“We do not have confidence in the current arrangements to ensure the continuity of life-saving medications for people with epilepsy.”

The Government have sought to reassure patients that their contingency plans are failsafe, but the report in The Lancet that I referenced earlier also said that

“stockpiling arrangements cannot cope for more than a few weeks.”

It also noted that some affected products, such as radioisotopes needed for treating some types of cancer, simply cannot be stockpiled. This chimes with the Royal College of Radiologists, which last month issued staggering concerns about the supply of medical isotopes, spelling out how the expected disruption would force clinicians to alter treatment plans and mean the prioritisation of some cancer patients over others. That is why the Government are proposing the serious shortages protocol contained in this statutory instrument and effectively using Henry VIII powers to enable Ministers to issue a protocol to pharmacies for them to follow.

As I said, this is an extraordinary power grab. It will effectively mean that a GP’s prescription can be changed by a pharmacist. No longer would a medicine be prescribed by a doctor who knows the medical history of the patient but instead by a pharmacist acting in accordance with a protocol drawn up by the Government. That is why these emergency measures have, quite rightly, raised alarm among various patient groups—because these changes could cause real problems for people with long- term conditions.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be sensible if there was a sunset clause, because clearly giving that much power to a pharmacist as opposed to a physician who knows the patient is very dangerous if it is to be used for the long term or perpetually and not just to deal with the current crisis?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The hon. Lady makes an entirely reasonable observation. I trust that the Minister took note of it and look forward to her reply to that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Ashworth]

My hon. Friend is right. That is exactly the point that community pharmacists put to me in Loughborough about three weeks ago when I visited them to discuss this. Echoing her point, the BMA has said that it does not support a “blanket approach” to allowing pharmacists to provide therapeutic equivalents where a prescribed drug is not available. The National AIDS Trust has said:

“The only person qualified to safely alter the medication prescribed to a person living with HIV is that person’s HIV consultant.”

SUDEP Action, alongside a broader coalition of epilepsy charities, is particularly worried about these proposals.

After facing pressure from those groups, the Government accepted that replacement drugs were unsuitable for epilepsy patients, but they have left it open to pharmacists to reduce the strength or dosage of epilepsy medication. I am not convinced that that will eliminate the big risks faced by these patients. As the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, many patients with epilepsy—especially the elderly—are on other medications, and any changes require careful management because of the interaction between different medicines. Up to 90% of people with epilepsy state that even a deterioration in their mood can have a negative effect on seizure control. Anti-epileptic medications have more significant interactions than any other group of drugs.

There are situations where the specific brand, type, form or strength of a treatment must be carefully tailored to the individual based on their responses, which is done by the prescriber and the patient over time. If that is changed by a professional who does not know the patient or their individual risks, some have warned that the consequences could be a loss of control of the condition, failed treatment and an unnecessary emergency, with very serious consequences indeed.

[Anne Marie Morris]

The hon. Gentleman is making a first-class point. This puts patients at risk, and it is not appropriate for the pharmacist to make that decision. People think that generics are the same thing as branded drugs, but they are not. For some, a particular brand is crucial. I commend him for what he is doing.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I am flattered to receive such commendation from the Conservative Benches, and I commend the hon. Lady for her extremely well-made point, with which I agree entirely. I hope that the Minister will respond to the second good point that the hon. Lady has made.

The stakes are too high to get this wrong, yet there has been no impact assessment or risk assessment undertaken on serious shortage protocols for this statutory instrument. This is an unacceptable risk to anyone with a long-term condition and should be recognised by anyone making contingency plans. I was particularly horrified to read in the explanatory memorandum for this SI—it is quite shocking:

“The main benefits of the protocol would be the NHS cost savings associated with GP time.”

In the same breath, it casually goes on to say:

“There may be some risks to patients”.

That is in the Government’s own paperwork. It is astonishing. How can the Government seriously prioritise NHS cost savings over patients’ lives and allow an explanatory memorandum to go out with that sort of wording in it? I hope that the Minister can explain how that got in there and at least reassure us that it is not the Government’s position. If it is the Government’s position that there may be some risks to patients, that suggests that the Government should have come to the House sooner to explain why they are making this regulatory change and not left it to the official Opposition to table a prayer motion to get this debate.

I would like clarity from the Government on a few things. It is not entirely clear from the legislation exactly when these powers would be used. I would like to hear from the Minister whether these powers will be introduced in a no-deal Brexit scenario only or whether we can expect them to be more permanent. I am also concerned that there will only be a review of new powers one year after a serious shortage protocol is issued by Ministers. This speaks to the point made by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris). One year is too long to wait if this causes serious problems for patients and the wider sector.

Considering that the stakes are so high, it is be essential that the Government deliver extensive communication and training to GPs, pharmacists, other healthcare professionals and the public, to help them understand any new protocols and manage expectations and any dissatisfaction. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined the Government’s plans. I talk and listen to frontline NHS staff all the time, and I know that there is a well-founded fear about the implications of a no-deal Brexit for hundreds of thousands of people in need of life-saving medicines. I am interested to hear from the Minister what information about these protocols has been shared with the health sector and professionals involved.

When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee a few weeks ago, he informed it that he will prioritise medicines over food. That glib assertion from the Secretary of State hardly offered the reassurance that patients deserve. Brexit should not compromise patient safety in any way. It is up to the Minister to allay the widespread concerns, but if she is not able to do so, we will test the opinion of the House. I commend our motion.