NHS Funding (Ageing)

David Mowat Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dr Coffey]

I respect what the hon. Gentleman is saying. There is no doubt that allowing doctors to lose the responsibility for effectively caring for their patients 24 hours a day has caused significant change. An ageing population means that that is increasing and will continue to be a pressure on alternative sources of health treatment. A lot of work is going on and I am pleased that the landmark Health and Social Care Act 2012 will start to tackle some of the issues, but I want to give credit to GPs, who are doing so much more for patients in our local surgeries now than 20 or 30 years ago, mainly because of technology changes, but also through a recognition that we can prevent people from going to hospital by doing more in primary care. That is an admirable change, so I want to praise GPs, while agreeing with the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) that rescinding that 24-hour care responsibility was a backwards step for patients. The lack of out-of-hours care was one of the big doorstep issues before the 2010 general election.

Turning to the different formulas, one big change in the 2012 Act was splitting funding for the NHS, with public health going to authorities, recognising the deprivation inherent in different parts of the population. That was the right thing to do. Surrey ended up with £20 a head for public health and places such as Hackney had £115. Westminster, for example, has an even higher allocation, recognising that parts of the borough have significant deprivation, but it was the right thing to do. Local authorities not only got the staff from NHS trusts who focused on public health campaigns, but were also given responsibility for tackling the long-term factors that contribute to health inequalities, be they quality of housing or local employment. Frankly, the NHS was not in a position dramatically to change the levers affecting such inequalities in local communities, so it is right that councils took on that leadership. I hope and pray that they continue to take the initiative, rather than just focusing on public health programmes. It is a real step change in the responsibility of and the opportunity for our local councillors to make a difference.

Meanwhile, the opportunity was there to examine the formula for the rest of the NHS budget. I refer to section 23(1) of the 2012 Act, which inserted a new chapter into the National Health Service Act 2006. Section 13G, “Duty as to reducing inequalities”, of that new chapter states:

“The Board must, in the exercise of its functions, have regard to the need to—

(a) reduce inequalities between patients with respect to their ability to access health services, and

(b) reduce inequalities between patients with respect to the outcomes achieved for them by the provision of health services.”

The effect is twofold, but the latest funding formula has not taken account of the

“ability to access health services”,

and inequalities have been strengthened.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate her on securing the debate. The problem is not with the formula that was developed by the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, but that the board of NHS England inexplicably decided not to implement it. That is what we are now living with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I have not gone into that level of detail and do not have that level of understanding, but she makes an important contribution to the debate. Local clinical commissioning group and NHS trusts must contend with that challenge and should make that point to the board of NHS England.

I come back to the formula. I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) that the focus on age may have slightly increased, but that it did not go far enough. The correlation between age and per capita funding increased only marginally between the old formula and the partially adopted current formula. South Sefton receives 40% more per capita than Ipswich and east Suffolk, but it has 50,000 fewer pensioners and a lower proportion of pensioners. Life expectancy in my part of Suffolk is considerably higher than in others, which is good, but that does not necessarily mean that people, in particular the elderly, do not have complex health needs that need addressing. At the moment, the formula continues to discriminate against the elderly and even further against people in rural areas.

[David Mowat]

This is a really important point on which we need clarity. The issue here is not the formula. Indeed, it does not really matter what the formula comes up with, because NHS England will not implement a formula that does not give everybody an inflation-based pay rise. That is what happened. With all due respect, the formula could be anything we liked, but if it will not be implemented, it just does not matter.

[Dr Coffey]

I can understand why the board of NHS England made a decision not to cut per patient funding in different parts of the country. We could get into the politics of the different aspects of what happened under previous Governments when overall funding went up, but parts of the country, such as the one that I represent, did not receive the same increases and seemed to suffer as a consequence, despite overall funding going up.

I am not into playing party politics with NHS or public funding, so I recognise exactly what my hon. Friend says. I guess that is what led to the outcry in the autumn about the “Tory-run NHS cutting funds to northern Labour seats,” which was disgraceful, because it was down to the ACRA’s independent assessment. I recognise, however, that that must be managed. Nevertheless, the board of NHS England bottled it by not being prepared to be a little braver in deciding on the allocations. It also ignored the formula and, as a consequence, effectively decreased the recommendation on the proportion that should go to elderly patients, which was wrong in principle, but I recognise what my hon. Friend says.

Various proposals were suggested—I say this as a constituency MP and not as a Conservative party representative—that could have seen an improvement in the pace of change towards getting a fairer funding formula while still not cutting funds to patients in different parts of the country. I regret the final decision of the board of NHS England. Of the two options proposed, I would have hoped that it would have gone for the first, recognising that it was a unique opportunity to tackle the unfairness, but the board bottled it.

I want to discuss why the issue matters. There are four community hospitals in my constituency: Felixstowe, Aldeburgh, Southwold and the Patrick Stead, in Halesworth. The first three have been highly commended by the Care Quality Commission and they are well recognised and loved in the community. The Patrick Stead also does an excellent job. The CQC made some slight criticism, but, true to form, the hospital addressed that straight away and is back to doing good things. After I was elected to the House, it was understandable that my constituency neighbour, who is now the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), should be the local expert on health, as he is a distinguished doctor. However, in my own case work, the experiences of older patients in particular, who had not got the care or treatment they needed, kept coming up. That is what got me going on the entire issue.

We have in the past debated the East Of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust. That was a classic example. At the top line things were running fine. The trust was hitting its targets and financially it was very good. It was trying to get foundation trust status, and the chief executive was awarded the Queen’s ambulance service medal. However, at the heart of things, the NHS relied on the meeting of targets, and forgot about patients. As a consequence, elderly people with broken hips waited for hours for an ambulance to arrive, because their condition was not life-threatening. I am pleased about the big shift that has happened only in the past few months: finally we have got rid of the entire board of the ambulance trust. I am sure that they were all good people who wanted to do the best to help guide the trust. Nevertheless, they seemed to be satisfied with hitting targets, and patients were forgotten. The arrival of Anthony Marsh will be particularly useful.

I supported most of the service reconfigurations, as the Minister knows, but there was one I did not support. A proposal to reconfigure stroke services would effectively have removed them from Suffolk. One need not know a lot about medicine to know of the excellent FAST campaign, which I recommend all MPs share with their constituents. That recognises the need to act quickly and get good treatment after someone has a stroke. Ambulances in the east of England were not reaching people quickly enough to help them with the first steps in care. If stroke services had been removed from the county, it would have taken well over an hour to get access to the sort of care that is necessary to enable a stroke sufferer to have a good life. In the case of cardiac services, when people were treated en route and taken to the regional specialist centre in Cambridge, they got higher-quality care, and I support that, but I was concerned about the stroke proposals. That is why I was pleased when the local clinical commissioning groups came together and said, “No. We are going to keep stroke services in the county.”

However, I must admit that our significantly lower funding per head means that that decision has potential consequences in the local NHS. The fact that our funding level is so different is one of my concerns. Despite a small above-inflation increase, which I am pleased about, I contend that we should be doing considerably more to help NHS CCGs to meet the needs of a significantly higher proportion of the relevant population. The constituencies with the highest proportion of people over 85 include places such as Worthing West, Christchurch, North Norfolk and Newton Abbot—largely rural and often coastal areas. By definition, those are often the places away from regional centres of excellence. I am concerned that the funding formula did not address the needs of patients living on the coast.

I have discussed at length my concerns about what the NHS board has not done, but opportunities are coming through, to do with local innovation. The King’s Fund report, “Making our health and care systems fit for an ageing population”, was an important contribution. One of the examples of local innovation to which it referred was at Gnosall GP surgery in Staffordshire, which provides patients over 75 with an annual health review and uses experienced “elder care facilitators” to support patients, helping them to navigate the system and draw up care plans. That is a good example of local innovation. I tabled a parliamentary question on 20 January at column 76W asking about bringing health visitors in for people over 75. I recognise that health visitors’ primary focus is, rightly, young children. However, there may be something that we can do, and perhaps the board of NHS England could think about rolling out the practice I suggest, particularly in parts of the country with a high proportion of elderly patients.

I could speak for the entire hour and a half on this subject, but I will not, the House will be pleased do know. It is regularly talked about. The board of NHS England had a golden opportunity, with the Health and Social Care Act 2012, to step away from the political pressures and do what was right for patients. As I said, I think it bottled it, and I am sad about that. I hope that it will reconsider its decision and think again about the needs of the elderly. Those people have served the country with distinction. We say that we do not want to discriminate by age, but the postcode lottery seems to determine whether elderly patients get the treatment they deserve. The debate will not be settled today. Unusually, perhaps, the Government cannot wave a magic wand and change the formula. It is for the board of NHS England to do that. I hope it will reconsider and truly look after the patients in question. In a few years we will be the ones in their position, and we need to do our bit to address the challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on securing this important debate. Although NHS funding has increased in real terms, what matters is the allocation that we get in our communities. We have learned a lot already from hon. Members’ remarks. Personally, one of the most important things I have learned is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) reads the Daily Mirror. I will reflect on that fact.

The issue of ageing has been a known problem in the NHS for some while. It was a problem for the previous Government and there was an attempt to reflect it better in what was then the ACRA formula. Like the current Government, the previous Government did not implement that formula. The direction for travel adjustments that should have been made in the years before the general election were not made and the formula was essentially static.

As an MP for an underfunded area—Warrington is underfunded—I was optimistic that a new Government bristling with talent and enthusiasm for sorting out such issues would fix the problem. As has been mentioned, the Secretary of State asked the independent ACRA committee to make a clinically based decision on how money should best be allocated—of course, allocation can mean that there are winners and losers—based on ageing, deprivation, population and any other salient factors. The consequence was that a new formula was developed and submitted.

To be clear, nobody who wants the problem fixed is expecting a new formula to be implemented immediately. As hon. Members have pointed out, some areas are significantly under-allocated while others are over-allocated. There therefore has to be a process by which we move towards the correct number over a period of years—that is, the direction of travel adjustment—so that big, unmanageable changes do not happen. That would be perfectly acceptable.

Is that what happened, however, when we went to the board of NHS England with the new, clinically developed formula designed by an independent group? The answer is no. The board of NHS England said, “If we implement the formula, there will be winners and losers. Our view”—perhaps this was because of political pressure—“is that the losers complain more than the winners celebrate. We are going to give everybody an inflation increase. With the bit left over, we will give a little more to those furthest away from target.”

One of those areas was Warrington. We are grateful that we got extra money, but it was not enough. I suspect that the situation was similar in Suffolk and Oxfordshire: some extra money was allocated, but not as much as would have been allocated had the formula been implemented.

What does that mean for public health? We are stuck with a static formula, developed around 2002 or 2003. The previous Government made no direction of travel adjustments to it other than for inflation and we are apparently reluctant to make those adjustments as well. That is a pity. A static formula may be politically expedient but it is not right. That is why we have ACRA—to go into the issues and come up with the right answer. The situation, for me, raises the question of why someone would be on the board of ACRA, given what happens to its recommendations.

There are consequences. I have seen the numbers: 34 CCGs are more than 5% underfunded—that 5% is a lot of money in health allocation—and 38 CCGs are more than 5% overfunded. What to me is even more significant is that 84% of CCGs that will have a deficit are underfunded. That is an issue because if we are trying to make people accountable for managing an efficient operation, but start that process by saying that we are not going to implement a formula that would give a fairer allocation, it is reasonable for them to come back and say, “Yes, and therefore we have a deficit.” It hits the whole process.

What is the impact in our constituencies? We have heard about Harrow, Oxfordshire and Suffolk. Warrington is also underfunded. The issue is not necessarily that older folk get worse services, but that marginal or discretionary activities are not carried out in underfunded CCGs. For example, in Warrington we are unable to provide IVF in the way that the National Institution for Health and Clinical Excellence would like because funding is not available. GPs decide how to allocate what funding they have and consequently the people who lose are not always the ones who would be imagined to have lost in the formula. Overfunded CCGs can undertake more discretionary activity than others, and someone should look at which parts of our NHS are spending large amounts of money on alternative therapies such as homeopathy. That is likely to be the result of overfunding, and that is not acceptable.

There was an element of politics. Everyone agrees that ageing is a good proxy of health need, but there is an issue about the weighting that we should give to deprivation. That was in the letter from the shadow Secretary of State for Health that was read out, and it may have been part of his concern. That does not allow for the fact that ACRA was an independent committee and either we accept what it said or we do not. I have some questions for the Minister on that because it goes to the heart of whether the NHS is manageable. If such important decisions are, in the end, made for reasons of political expediency, why do we have an NHS board and senior NHS managers who are supposed to provide the right answers? We would not need any of that; we could just link the issue to inflation or inflation plus a little bit.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

My hon. Friend is making a key point. One point about the Health and Social Care Act 2012 was to remove that party political element of manipulating or managing the formula or putting in extra factors. That is where a key opportunity has been missed.

[David Mowat]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but as I said, the issue is not the formula, although it may also be the formula—my hon. Friend and I may not agree on that. I accept the formula, and I would have liked it to have been implemented. I have difficulty in accepting that, for political reasons, it was not implemented.

People in my constituency and elsewhere who are not affluent and do not understand this stuff lose out because the previous Government did not do the distance from target adjustments under the old formula and NHS England has refused to implement the right thing under the new formula. It is hard to justify that. Why have ACRA if we are not going to do what it says, and why have an NHS board if it cannot manage change and do the right thing? That is why big organisations have senior managers who are paid lots of money.

Are there symptoms of waste in the 38 CCGs that are overfunded by 5% or more? Is the incidence of alternative therapies and all that goes with that higher there because they have the money, so why not spend it? Does the Minister really believe that he can hold CCGs accountable for budgets given that how those budgets are allocated is apparently so political and not based on clinical judgements by independent people such as those on ACRA?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reed]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am not sure that I agree with her. Not for the first time today—I am not laying this singularly at her feet; she knows that I have great respect for her—we have heard the argument that I hear frequently from Government Members about there somehow being an enemy within. That does not deserve significant air time in this Chamber or on any other platform in this House.

It is a mark of how important these issues are that so many hon. Members attend these debates—not just today, but every time I have responded to a debate such as this in Westminster Hall. As we have heard again today, hon. Members passionately represent their constituents, often with moving testimony of constituents’ experiences. Today, we are discussing an issue that will affect many more people in the future.

The NHS is now more than 65 years old and to ensure that it is still here in 65 years’ time, it needs to adapt to the challenges of this new century. In 1948, the health challenges facing the UK were clearly very different from those we now face. As consistent improvements in medical knowledge have enabled more people to live better for longer, we are now tasked with providing a system to cope with an ageing society. Surely we all agree on that. One of the core principles of Labour’s plans for the NHS is that there should be a system fit for the 21st century. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) will speak about that and the impact of an ageing society later today.

The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal has raised on the Floor of the House and in recent Health questions the issue of the NHS funding formula and its impact on the elderly, and in my view the Government’s response has been poor. Late last year, NHS England consulted on a new funding formula based on recommendations from ACRA and we have covered such issues widely this morning. ACRA said:

“The objective of the formula is to provide equal opportunity of access for equal need. The basic building block of the formula is the size of the population of each CCG, and then adjustments or weights per head for differential need for health care across the country. The weights per head are based on need due to age (the more elderly the population, the higher the need per head, all else being equal) and additional need over and above that due to age (this includes measures of health status and a number of proxies for health status). There is also an adjustment or weight for the higher costs of delivering health care due to location alone, known as the Market Forces Factor…This reflects that staff, land and building costs are higher in”

for example,

“London than the rest of the country.”

I can point to life expectancy gaps in Cumbria exceeding 20 years. Healthy life expectancy ages in some areas of the country are well below 60 years and the local population, by default, will be younger than in areas where healthy life expectancy is much higher. Health funding in areas with low life expectancy will be disproportionately affected.

It is right that NHS England listened to the concerns not just of the Opposition, but of medical professionals and others about the funding formula, and it is right that deprivation will be taken into account as part of the formula, but that has not changed the overall direction of travel. Over time, money will still be taken from areas with the poorest health and given to those where healthy life expectancy is longer. I would be grateful if the Minister explained how that is justifiable. It is the very antithesis of the founding principles of the NHS that funding should be allocated disproportionately to more wealthy areas.

The pattern is also demonstrated across the public health spending formula. Areas such as Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea receive in excess of £100 per head more than my own county, Cumbria, despite Cumbria’s having some of the greatest health inequalities in the country.

[David Mowat]

Just to get clarity, is the hon. Gentleman’s position that ACRA’s formula was wrong and therefore should not have been implemented, or would he have liked to have seen it implemented over time?

[Mr Reed]

I will come on to that question. The funding formula on its own is a blunt tool that will struggle to address intricacies within a health economy as varied as the one in England and, therefore, more needs to be done at the interface between medic and patient to improve care for older people.

Funding is crucial, but financial pressures mean that we have to use existing funding more efficiently. Day after day, we are getting repeated warnings about the sustainability of the NHS and the £3.5 billion reorganisation that nobody wanted and nobody voted for has left NHS finances on a knife-edge. As such, more has to be done with less and that requires more than small changes at the system’s periphery. Last year, more than half a million pensioners had an emergency admission to hospital that could have been avoided if they had received better care outside hospital.

A study undertaken by researchers at Imperial college London found that nearly a third of hospital beds are used for patients who might not have needed them if their care had been better managed, which shows that we should focus on improving community care services to allow older people to remain in their own homes. The CQC has also found a general acceleration in the rate of avoidable hospital admissions.

Pensioners tend to have at least one long-term condition and those over 75 tend to have two or more. As society ages and the number of comorbidities increases, we need a system set up to care for the whole person, rather than the individual ailments that have no regard for the person behind them. The system needs greater integration and better co-operation between services to improve care for older people and ensure that they can be cared for in their own homes, rather than being forced into hospital just because the services in the community are not good enough or, in some cases, are not there at all.

The Government, however, have legislated for competition and fragmentation—and, as a result, for service isolation. Cuts to council budgets have meant that community services have suffered and patients are paying the price. I see that every day in my constituency. To improve health and well-being for the elderly in our society does not require penalising deprived areas with an obtuse funding formula; it requires improvement in collaboration between primary and secondary care and improvements in community care services to ensure that people can get the treatment they need, but also live independently in their own homes.

Thus far, the Government have provided no real solution to the challenges posed by changing health needs. We need to introduce a system of whole-person care and to respond to the changing health needs of our society: for young and old, and for the poor and those not in poverty. To do that—I end on a partisan note that reflects the tone of the debate so far—we need a Labour Government.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, for what I believe is the second time. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on securing today’s debate. As I am also an MP who represents Suffolk, which is a predominantly rural county, I recognise and support her interest in the allocation of NHS funding in areas with a high proportion of older people. I understand that she is meeting with colleagues at NHS England, who lead on clinical commissioning group funding allocations, to discuss the matter later in the month.

It is worth outlining at the outset that the funding formula allocations for this year mean that Suffolk and every other CCG is a winner. They have all seen an increase in their NHS funding. It is important to make that clear.

Before I go any further, I will pick up on some of the points made. I will not detain the Chamber by talking further on the issues raised by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). His was a wide-ranging contribution, and I understand that he had to leave early, so I will write to him separately.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) made an eloquent case, as he always does, for Oxfordshire and the issues faced in that county. He outlined in particular the challenges presented in rural areas by an ageing population.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), as ever, made a compelling case for his constituents and for the importance of changes in the funding formula being gradual. I think he was saying that it is important not to destabilise local health care economies. The funding formula was a political formula set by the previous Government, while the current formula is not political but set independently with no political interference. It is important, however, as has been outlined in the debate, that we move towards a new set of arrangements in a staged and managed manner. Otherwise, local economies will be destabilised and that could lead to unintended consequences and potential effects on local hospital services, something none of us wants to see.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as always, made a useful contribution on behalf of his constituents. I understand that Northern Ireland has the fastest ageing population in the UK, with the number of over-65s due to increase by 10.7% in the next few years. The only sustainable long-term strategy is one that engages actively with the population through not just the health sector, but the community and elsewhere, to ensure that the focus is on whole-person care in Northern Ireland, with communities working together with the NHS to deliver better care and dignity in care for older people. That was, I believe, outlined in the Budget and it is to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s credit that they highlighted the significance of an ageing population. That issue is a funding priority for them, and rightly so.

It is also important to highlight the context in which this discussion is taking place. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal was right to highlight the Nicholson challenge and to say that, to meet it, we need to transform radically the way we deliver care, in particular in rural areas and communities. She was also right to highlight that the £3.8 billion integration fund that the Government are setting up to join together and better integrate the primary care, secondary care, care in the community and adult social care delivered by local authorities—in her constituency, by Suffolk county council—is the way to do that. The focus is no longer on seeing a patient or a person within the silo of where they are cared for, but on joined-up, holistic care and ensuring that people with long-term conditions such as asthma, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and dementia are cared for in the right way throughout their care. The primary focus for that must be to deliver more care in the community and in people’s own homes. That is something we can all sign up to.

I turn briefly to the points raised by the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed). I cannot let him get away with some of the things he threw into the debate today. He talked about fragmentation of services. Service fragmentation is shown no better than through the decisions on the use of private sector providers made by the previous Government. Let us not forget that they paid those providers 11% more than the NHS to provide the same service and care—something a Labour Government should have been ashamed of. This Government were certainly ashamed of that, which is why we put that right and ensured that the tariff is now set so that the private sector cannot be advantaged over NHS providers. We have also ensured that the tariff is much more focused on integrated care, rather than fragmented care.

The previous Government—understandably, to some degree—focused on reducing waiting lists, but unfortunately that did lead to fragmented services. For example, when an older person went in to have a hip replaced, the focus was purely on the operation and not necessarily on the rehabilitation and recovery that is so important after such operations. That led to fragmentation. That is why this Government and NHS England are looking at tariffs across primary and secondary care and the community to ensure that there is a genuine focus on holistic care for those who have operations, rather than just seeing people as a widget in the context of an operation, as the previous Government’s tariff setting did. We need to see such people, whether young or old, in the round and ensure that, importantly, there is a more holistic focus on rehabilitation and care.

I notice that although the hon. Gentleman said that he would get on to whether he supports an independently-set formula, he failed to do so. I am sure that all hon. Members find that disappointing. Not committing himself either way on that question suggests that he prefers the political, set formula encouraged and supported by the previous Government, which disadvantaged areas with ageing populations. I hope that at some point in the next few months when we have these debates, the Labour party will clarify its position and we will understand whether it does support an independently set formula or whether it would like to return to the political, fixed formula of which the previous Government were so fond. It would be useful for us to understand that.

[David Mowat]

I think the Minister is not doing do justice to the Opposition spokesman, who did semi-answer the question. He made it clear that he did not accept the independent, clinically driven formula. I think he called it obtuse. It is extremely interesting for, among others, my constituents and health care professionals in towns such as Warrington, who would have gained from a fairer formula, that the Labour party will not accept an independent, clinically driven formula as a basis for allocation. That very important point was made today.

[Dr Poulter]

If that was the case—I may have missed it—my hon. Friend has made an important clarification. It is important that we have a formula that is as far as possible beyond reproach and set according to clinical need—the needs of patients. It is important that a number of factors be taken into account when that formula is put in place, as has been articulated clearly by NHS England in the discussions about how the formula is set. Deprivation is a factor. It is important to note that one of the primary drivers for setting the funding formula is now age and the needs of an ageing population. That is an important factor to highlight in this debate.

I shall now deal with some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal. She may be aware NHS England has undertaken a fundamental review of its approach to allocations, drawing on the expert advice of ACRA and other external groups. The review’s findings have resulted in a new formula that provides a more accurate model of health care need. Last December, NHS England published the allocations for 2014-15 and 2015-16, based on the new formula. That gives CCGs two years of certainty about what their funding allocation is, which we can all welcome.

I know that my hon. Friend is very busy and may not have had the time or opportunity to review in detail during the past three months the information relating to the new formula, but I hope I can reassure her on the direction of travel. The formula is putting us much more on the trajectory she wants to see. It is independently set and therefore has a lot of clinical merit.