NHS Funding (Ageing)

Debate between David Mowat and Thérèse Coffey

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?

New Nuclear Power

Debate between David Mowat and Thérèse Coffey

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to have the chance to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) on securing it.

Before I begin my remarks, I want to address two of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. First, on the subsidy issue, of course it is true that we are paying more for nuclear than we would pay if we let the market ride, because the market would take us to coal, and if not coal, to gas. Whether we call that a subsidy or a price for carbon, I do not know. I personally believe that we must address the decarbonisation issue, that nuclear power is part of the solution, as is wind, and that the contract for difference mechanism is a way of acknowledging a price for carbon. If we want to call that a subsidy, I accept that.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said, as I have heard others say, that it is reasonable to subsidise new technologies such as wind, solar and all the rest, but not nuclear, which is an old technology dating back to 1956. That is a false argument. It is a little like saying that physics is an old technology because it started in about 1900 and we have had it for all that time. Nuclear is changing and evolving, just as wind power did. There are different types of nuclear power. Is thorium technology new, or are the different types of reactors new? It is a very difficult argument to maintain. If we are serious about decarbonisation, it is hard not to see nuclear as part of the solution.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Does he agree that the latest design approved by the Office for Nuclear Regulation for the new reactors that EDF proposes to use shows that those reactors are more efficient than before, and so we are rewarding that investment in technology to ensure that we get more value for money?

[David Mowat]

My honest answer is that I do not know if they are more efficient. I assume that they are—why would they not be?

I am of the view that we should not go nuclear if there are low-carbon technologies that can outperform it at scale and within the time frames that we need, because I accept that there are issues with nuclear. For example, we have not solved the waste problem. The question for the House, though, is whether that problem is more severe than global warming. We must make choices. We need to decide whether the waste issue is containable—no pun intended—whereas the global warming issue is not containable. However, it is nonsense to pretend that nuclear is not part of the decarbonisation of the world.