Social Care
Sarah Wollaston Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barbara Keeley
I agree, and our motion talks about the need for
“a longer-term settlement to ensure that the social care system is sustainable going forward”.
We absolutely do need that.
On quality of care, I was talking about Susan finding a care home and it giving inadequate care. There are too many such care homes. In its 2016 “State of Care” report, the Care Quality Commission said that when it makes a return visit to a service originally rated as “inadequate”, one quarter of those services were not able to improve their ratings. Susan found poor-quality home care, and last week the ombudsman reported that the number of complaints about homecare is rising and that the number of complaints upheld by the ombudsman is also rising.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I agree with the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on the need for cross-party working to achieve sustainable funding for both health and social care. As the hon. Lady will know, I have set out my concerns about the underfunding of social care in a letter to the Chancellor. Does she agree that it is not just about funding, however, but also about how we support and train our social care staff? Would she like to see further progress made on the recommendations of Camilla Cavendish about how we train and support our care staff to help to retain them as well as recruit them?
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Wollaston Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The Minister is aware of the Health Committee’s concerns about the effect of underfunding of social care on the NHS. He may also be aware that there are particular concerns in my area and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) because of the recent Care Quality Commission rating of Mears Care as inadequate. Coming on the back of community hospital closures in Paignton, that gives grave concern to all our constituents. Will the Minister meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay to discuss this further?
David Mowat
My hon. Friend is right that there was an inadequate CQC rating for that care home. It is therefore right that the care home must either improve or go out of business. That is what the CQC regulatory environment will ensure. She makes a point about the issue with the hospital in Paignton; that is out for consultation at the moment, and I would expect the local care situation to be part of that consultation.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Sarah Wollaston Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
We now come to the Select Committee statement. Dr Sarah Wollaston, the Chair of the Health Committee, will speak on the subject for up to 10 minutes, during which—I remind colleagues of this relatively new procedure—no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, the Chair will call Members to put questions on the subject of it and call Dr Wollaston to respond to them in turn. Members can expect to be called only once each. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. Those on the Front Bench may take part in questioning.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The Health Committee held an inquiry into winter pressures in accident and emergency departments. What we found, however, was that those pressures are now year-round, and that they worsen in the winter.
I would like to start by thanking all those who work in our national health service and our ambulances services, and all those who submitted written evidence and presented oral evidence to our inquiry. I also want to thank all fellow members of the Committee and the Committee team, especially Huw Yardley and Stephen Aldhouse, for their contribution to the report.
The root of the problem is unprecedented demand. It is not just about the sheer number of people arriving in our accident and emergency departments—on average, around 40,000 people attended a major accident and emergency department per day in 2015-16, which was 6,000 more per day than five years previously—it is also about the complexity of the conditions with which they are presenting. The worsening performance that we are seeing, which is of great concern to the Committee, is also a reflection of system-wide pressures across the whole NHS.
We noted that only approximately 88% of patients arriving at major accident and emergency departments are being admitted, transferred or discharged within four hours. That is concerning, because it falls considerably short of the target performance standard of 95%. We should not think of this as just an arbitrary target or a tick in a box; it matters for patient safety and for patients’ experience of the care they receive.
Our report identifies a number of factors. We are also concerned about the level of variation in performance of accident and emergency departments. Often that performance cannot be attributed only to local pressures or demographics. We acknowledge that there are many things that hospital trusts can do to learn from the best performing departments to help improve the flow from the front door to the point of discharge, and to prevent people from getting caught in that revolving door by being readmitted. I pay tribute to the efforts of NHS England and of all those working locally and regionally to try to make sure that the NHS starts to learn from best practice, and I particularly commend Pauline Philip and her team for what they are doing.
One thing, however, comes across very clearly from our report: the impact that the deficiencies in social care are having on accident and emergency. If we cannot discharge patients at the end of their journey because no social care packages are available, it has a domino effect throughout the whole system. Not only that, but people arrive in accident and emergency departments who could have stayed at home if they had had the right social care package. The Committee therefore repeats its request to the Chancellor to look at social care in his autumn statement and to prioritise it.
We also recognised that many accident and emergency departments are under particular pressure because of their working infrastructure—the premises may be completely inadequate to cope with the increase in demand and complexity—so we repeat our call to the Chancellor to look in his autumn statement at the capital budgets in the NHS and to make sure that the funds are available to allow the transformative changes that can bring struggling A&Es up to the same performance level as those that are functioning the best.
There are also, of course, issues with the workforce. We are concerned about the impact of workforce shortfalls in the NHS, and we ask Health Education England to redouble its efforts to look at them.
When we visited East of England ambulance trust we found that it was concerned, as were others who submitted evidence, about the impact of delayed transfers at the front door of accident and emergency departments. Again, there is great variation, and it is not all about infrastructure. If ambulances are all gummed up in one accident and emergency department it has a serious knock-on effect within an ambulance trust area, so we call on those who are not putting in place the correct procedures to look carefully at the impact that that is having and to make changes this winter.
The Government also need to look at issues around alcohol policy. Anybody who has attended an accident and emergency department on a Friday or a Saturday night will know of the pressures that problem drinking creates. We ask the Government to consider making health an objective for licensing and to look at doing all they can to reduce the impact of alcohol. That impact is felt not just on waiting times, of course, but on the morale and wellbeing of staff working in our emergency services.
I thank all those who have contributed to this inquiry, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I echo the words of the Chair of the Select Committee in thanking all the staff who work so hard in the health service. I also thank those who produced and contributed to the Select Committee’s report, which is important and concerning in equal measure.
The report is clear that years of underfunding in social care are now having a dramatic effect on A&E presentation. Does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that, ahead of the autumn statement, if there is to be the necessary injection of cash into the social care sector the Chancellor will have to come up with a better solution than one that relies on hard-pressed local councils raising the necessary funds locally?
Dr Wollaston
I thank the shadow Minister. The Committee agrees that there needs to be more funding for social care. We were concerned that the evidence we heard in this inquiry and previous inquiries is that the money raised from the social care precept has been swallowed up by the cost of the living wage. We absolutely welcome an increase in pay for hard-pressed care workers, but we feel that the increase in funding is completely inadequate to deal with the scale of the increase in demand.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
I would like to add my welcome for the work of the Health Committee in this report and to say how pleased I was to have the opportunity to appear before my hon. Friend’s Committee for the first time since taking up this post.
We all recognise that the system is facing a challenging winter, but we are determined to ensure that the NHS and the social care sector are focused on trying to deliver for patients and that the national organisations, where possible, are in a position to support them effectively this winter.
This year, the NHS is better prepared for winter than ever before, with NHS staff working incredibly hard throughout the year and more ready for what will be the busiest time for the NHS. Despite increased demand, the NHS is performing well, with nine out of 10 people seen in A&E within four hours.
We have ensured that there are robust plans in place. That includes providing for the availability of key services, such as primary and social care, during the Christmas and new year bank holiday periods in advance, which has not happened before. For the first time, there is also a national A&E improvement plan to improve flow through hospitals from the front door to final discharge, with the implementation of five initiatives, and there is a specific intervention on discharge.
The Select Committee’s report highlights continuing pressures on emergency departments, so does my hon. Friend share my welcome for the 25% increase in doctors—almost 1,200 more doctors—working in emergency medicine since 2010?
Dr Wollaston
Of course I welcome the increase in staff in our accident and emergency departments. As the Minister will recognise, there is further to go in this regard.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the four-hour A&E target is absolutely vital, because it, more than any other target, shows the overall performance of a hospital, and that the figures are extremely worrying? Does she also share my concern that last winter was very mild, and we were relatively lucky, with the absence of a big winter flu outbreak? If this winter is as cold as this Chamber, the NHS could face a very serious crisis indeed.
Dr Wollaston
Certainly, the evidence we heard in our inquiry was that there is grave concern about the level of existing pressure. As the right hon. Gentleman says, if we see a very cold winter, and the flu vaccine does not work as well as it did last winter, we are in serious difficulties. But I stress again that the Committee was very clear that we want to see the four-hour waiting time standard continued, because it is a good measure of whole-system pressure, and if people are facing very long waits that leads to a deterioration in patient safety. So it is a quality issue, as well as an issue about patient experience.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I note what the Chair of the Health Committee says about social care and delayed transfers of care. Would she commend an initiative taken in hospitals in Fife, where the most senior consultants were put into accident and emergency, which led to a 30% reduction in admissions to the hospital? Does she not agree that more junior staff are sometimes perhaps slightly more risk-averse because they do not have the experience? Does she not think that, where Fife has led, other hospitals around the UK could usefully follow?
Dr Wollaston
I thank my hon. Friend, and I welcome him to the Health Committee. Yes, he is absolutely right that one of the initiatives that has been put forward is to look at streaming at the front door, but what we heard is that this is quite nuanced. If very senior staff are tied up seeing every single person at the front door, that can be a waste of resources. However, if the patients who are most at risk of needing admission—the sickest individuals —are identified early on and seen by the most senior doctors available, then yes, absolutely, that makes a difference.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I had a little smile to myself at the Minister’s response. When I was a commissioner, we often said to each other, “It’s another A&E plan—it must be winter again.” On Monday, I asked the Secretary of State about the £2.4 billion protection for general practice, and I am afraid that there was not a satisfactory answer and the money will not plug the hospital deficits. There are very severe general practice problems in south Bristol and very worrying reports about sustainability. I am looking forward to the report, but will the hon. Lady say something about the role of general practice in the winter pressures issue?
Dr Wollaston
We have to think of A&E winter pressures as a marker for the whole system. The hon. Lady is absolutely right and I welcome her reference to primary care, because if people cannot get an appointment in primary care, they are more likely to end up in A&E. Luton and Dunstable is now co-locating primary care so that people arriving at the front door who are more appropriately seen there can be seen directly in that setting. There is, however, another viewpoint: co-locating can sometimes end up creating demand, meaning that more people go there directly, so our report calls for better evaluation of the different models. One of the things that Luton and Dunstable does particularly well is apply evaluation at every stage to the changes it makes. The answer is complex, in that co-location may be absolutely the right thing for some systems, but not necessarily the right thing across the board. I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that people need to have decent, timely access to primary care.
A&E Departments: Winter Pressure
Sarah Wollaston Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The Health Committee held an inquiry into winter pressures in accident and emergency departments. What we found, however, was that those pressures are now year-round, and that they worsen in the winter.
I would like to start by thanking all those who work in our national health service and our ambulances services, and all those who submitted written evidence and presented oral evidence to our inquiry. I also want to thank all fellow members of the Committee and the Committee team, especially Huw Yardley and Stephen Aldhouse, for their contribution to the report.
The root of the problem is unprecedented demand. It is not just about the sheer number of people arriving in our accident and emergency departments—on average, around 40,000 people attended a major accident and emergency department per day in 2015-16, which was 6,000 more per day than five years previously—it is also about the complexity of the conditions with which they are presenting. The worsening performance that we are seeing, which is of great concern to the Committee, is also a reflection of system-wide pressures across the whole NHS.
We noted that only approximately 88% of patients arriving at major accident and emergency departments are being admitted, transferred or discharged within four hours. That is concerning, because it falls considerably short of the target performance standard of 95%. We should not think of this as just an arbitrary target or a tick in a box; it matters for patient safety and for patients’ experience of the care they receive.
Our report identifies a number of factors. We are also concerned about the level of variation in performance of accident and emergency departments. Often that performance cannot be attributed only to local pressures or demographics. We acknowledge that there are many things that hospital trusts can do to learn from the best performing departments to help improve the flow from the front door to the point of discharge, and to prevent people from getting caught in that revolving door by being readmitted. I pay tribute to the efforts of NHS England and of all those working locally and regionally to try to make sure that the NHS starts to learn from best practice, and I particularly commend Pauline Philip and her team for what they are doing.
One thing, however, comes across very clearly from our report: the impact that the deficiencies in social care are having on accident and emergency. If we cannot discharge patients at the end of their journey because no social care packages are available, it has a domino effect throughout the whole system. Not only that, but people arrive in accident and emergency departments who could have stayed at home if they had had the right social care package. The Committee therefore repeats its request to the Chancellor to look at social care in his autumn statement and to prioritise it.
We also recognised that many accident and emergency departments are under particular pressure because of their working infrastructure—the premises may be completely inadequate to cope with the increase in demand and complexity—so we repeat our call to the Chancellor to look in his autumn statement at the capital budgets in the NHS and to make sure that the funds are available to allow the transformative changes that can bring struggling A&Es up to the same performance level as those that are functioning the best.
There are also, of course, issues with the workforce. We are concerned about the impact of workforce shortfalls in the NHS, and we ask Health Education England to redouble its efforts to look at them.
When we visited East of England ambulance trust we found that it was concerned, as were others who submitted evidence, about the impact of delayed transfers at the front door of accident and emergency departments. Again, there is great variation, and it is not all about infrastructure. If ambulances are all gummed up in one accident and emergency department it has a serious knock-on effect within an ambulance trust area, so we call on those who are not putting in place the correct procedures to look carefully at the impact that that is having and to make changes this winter.
The Government also need to look at issues around alcohol policy. Anybody who has attended an accident and emergency department on a Friday or a Saturday night will know of the pressures that problem drinking creates. We ask the Government to consider making health an objective for licensing and to look at doing all they can to reduce the impact of alcohol. That impact is felt not just on waiting times, of course, but on the morale and wellbeing of staff working in our emergency services.
I thank all those who have contributed to this inquiry, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I echo the words of the Chair of the Select Committee in thanking all the staff who work so hard in the health service. I also thank those who produced and contributed to the Select Committee’s report, which is important and concerning in equal measure.
The report is clear that years of underfunding in social care are now having a dramatic effect on A&E presentation. Does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that, ahead of the autumn statement, if there is to be the necessary injection of cash into the social care sector the Chancellor will have to come up with a better solution than one that relies on hard-pressed local councils raising the necessary funds locally?
Dr Wollaston
I thank the shadow Minister. The Committee agrees that there needs to be more funding for social care. We were concerned that the evidence we heard in this inquiry and previous inquiries is that the money raised from the social care precept has been swallowed up by the cost of the living wage. We absolutely welcome an increase in pay for hard-pressed care workers, but we feel that the increase in funding is completely inadequate to deal with the scale of the increase in demand.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
I would like to add my welcome for the work of the Health Committee in this report and to say how pleased I was to have the opportunity to appear before my hon. Friend’s Committee for the first time since taking up this post.
We all recognise that the system is facing a challenging winter, but we are determined to ensure that the NHS and the social care sector are focused on trying to deliver for patients and that the national organisations, where possible, are in a position to support them effectively this winter.
This year, the NHS is better prepared for winter than ever before, with NHS staff working incredibly hard throughout the year and more ready for what will be the busiest time for the NHS. Despite increased demand, the NHS is performing well, with nine out of 10 people seen in A&E within four hours.
We have ensured that there are robust plans in place. That includes providing for the availability of key services, such as primary and social care, during the Christmas and new year bank holiday periods in advance, which has not happened before. For the first time, there is also a national A&E improvement plan to improve flow through hospitals from the front door to final discharge, with the implementation of five initiatives, and there is a specific intervention on discharge.
The Select Committee’s report highlights continuing pressures on emergency departments, so does my hon. Friend share my welcome for the 25% increase in doctors—almost 1,200 more doctors—working in emergency medicine since 2010?
Dr Wollaston
Of course I welcome the increase in staff in our accident and emergency departments. As the Minister will recognise, there is further to go in this regard.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the four-hour A&E target is absolutely vital, because it, more than any other target, shows the overall performance of a hospital, and that the figures are extremely worrying? Does she also share my concern that last winter was very mild, and we were relatively lucky, with the absence of a big winter flu outbreak? If this winter is as cold as this Chamber, the NHS could face a very serious crisis indeed.
Dr Wollaston
Certainly, the evidence we heard in our inquiry was that there is grave concern about the level of existing pressure. As the right hon. Gentleman says, if we see a very cold winter, and the flu vaccine does not work as well as it did last winter, we are in serious difficulties. But I stress again that the Committee was very clear that we want to see the four-hour waiting time standard continued, because it is a good measure of whole-system pressure, and if people are facing very long waits that leads to a deterioration in patient safety. So it is a quality issue, as well as an issue about patient experience.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I note what the Chair of the Health Committee says about social care and delayed transfers of care. Would she commend an initiative taken in hospitals in Fife, where the most senior consultants were put into accident and emergency, which led to a 30% reduction in admissions to the hospital? Does she not agree that more junior staff are sometimes perhaps slightly more risk-averse because they do not have the experience? Does she not think that, where Fife has led, other hospitals around the UK could usefully follow?
Dr Wollaston
I thank my hon. Friend, and I welcome him to the Health Committee. Yes, he is absolutely right that one of the initiatives that has been put forward is to look at streaming at the front door, but what we heard is that this is quite nuanced. If very senior staff are tied up seeing every single person at the front door, that can be a waste of resources. However, if the patients who are most at risk of needing admission—the sickest individuals —are identified early on and seen by the most senior doctors available, then yes, absolutely, that makes a difference.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I had a little smile to myself at the Minister’s response. When I was a commissioner, we often said to each other, “It’s another A&E plan—it must be winter again.” On Monday, I asked the Secretary of State about the £2.4 billion protection for general practice, and I am afraid that there was not a satisfactory answer and the money will not plug the hospital deficits. There are very severe general practice problems in south Bristol and very worrying reports about sustainability. I am looking forward to the report, but will the hon. Lady say something about the role of general practice in the winter pressures issue?
Dr Wollaston
We have to think of A&E winter pressures as a marker for the whole system. The hon. Lady is absolutely right and I welcome her reference to primary care, because if people cannot get an appointment in primary care, they are more likely to end up in A&E. Luton and Dunstable is now co-locating primary care so that people arriving at the front door who are more appropriately seen there can be seen directly in that setting. There is, however, another viewpoint: co-locating can sometimes end up creating demand, meaning that more people go there directly, so our report calls for better evaluation of the different models. One of the things that Luton and Dunstable does particularly well is apply evaluation at every stage to the changes it makes. The answer is complex, in that co-location may be absolutely the right thing for some systems, but not necessarily the right thing across the board. I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that people need to have decent, timely access to primary care.
Community Pharmacies
Sarah Wollaston Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mowat
I agree with my hon. Friend. I have set out the work that we are doing, and the fact that we are providing more money for services, over and above all the money involved in the cuts and efficiency savings that we have had to make, will help that process.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Further to that point, the Minister knows that our pharmacists are a highly skilled and professional resource that has long been underused in the NHS. He has mentioned the ongoing Murray review, and a sustainability and transformation plan process is also going on around the country. My concern is that the closures will come about in a random way, rather than through a planned process based on identifying skills in particular areas. Will he consider delaying them until we have all the reports in place and we can consider the matter on an area-by-area basis?
David Mowat
The access scheme is the device that will ensure that pharmacies are not closed in a random way. I want to address the point about closures head on. It is my belief that there will be a minimal number of closures. The impact analysis talks about 100 and it models 100. The average pharmacy has a margin of 15%, and the amount of efficiency savings that we are asking pharmacies to make over two years is 7%. In addition, the average pharmacy is trading for £750,000 when it closes or merges, even after we announced these efficiency savings a year ago. That value is being retained.
NHS Funding
Sarah Wollaston Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Hunt
I start by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his first urgent question in his new role. As I am a relative old timer in my role, I hope he will not mind me reminding him of some of the facts about health spending.
First, the hon. Gentleman said that the Government did not give the NHS what it asked for. Let me remind him that Simon Stevens, a former Labour special adviser—I know for new Labour, but he was none the less a Labour special adviser—said at the time of the spending review settlement last year that
“our case for the NHS has been heard and actively supported”
and that the settlement
“is a clear and highly welcome acceptance of our argument for frontloaded NHS investment. It will…kick start the NHS Five Year Forward View’s fundamental redesign of care.”
I will tell the hon. Gentleman who did not give the NHS what it asked for: the Labour party. At the last election, it refused to support the NHS—[Interruption.] I know this is uncomfortable for the new shadow Health Secretary, but the reality is that the party on whose platform he stood refused to support the NHS’s own plan for the future. As his question was about money, I will add that the Labour party also refused to fund it. The NHS wanted £8 billion; Labour’s promise was for additional funding of £2.5 billion—not £6 billion or £4 billion, but £2.5 billion, or less than one third of what the NHS said it needed. Even if we accept the numbers of the Chair of the Select Committee—and, as I will go on to explain, I do not—Labour was pledging over the course of the Parliament only around half of what this Government have delivered in the first year of the spending review.
The hon. Gentleman used other choice words, one of which was “spin”. I will tell him what creates the most misleading impression: a Labour party claiming to want more funding for the NHS when, in the areas where they run it, the opposite has happened. Indeed, in the first four years of the last Parliament, Labour cut NHS funding in Wales when it went up in England—[Interruption.] Yes, it did. Those are the official figures. That is in a context in which the Barnett formula gives the Government in Wales more than £700 more per head to spend on public services, so there is more money in the pot.
The hon. Gentleman talked about social care. May I remind him of what the shadow Chancellor at the time of the last election—Ed Balls, who is now sadly no longer of this parish—said? During the election campaign, he said of funding for local councils “not a penny more”. We are giving local councils £3.5 billion more during the course of this Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman talked about other cuts that he alleges will happen in A&E departments and other hospital services. I simply say to him that we have to make efficiency savings. I do not believe they will be on the scale he talked about, but how much worse would they have to be if the NHS got a third of the money it currently gets?
If the hon. Gentleman and his party think the NHS is underfunded, they need to accept that the policies that they advocated in the past two elections were wrong —they advocated spending less than the Conservatives. Until they are serious about changing their policy, no one will be serious about listening to their criticisms.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I agree with the Secretary of State that prevention is better than cure, but he will know that achieving the aims of the five year forward view was dependent on a radical upgrade in public health and prevention. He will know that it was also dependent on adequate funding for adult social care. In addition, there are continuing raids on the NHS capital budget, and we need to put in place the kind of transformation that he and our sustainability and transformation partnerships wish to achieve.
Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that he recognises the serious crisis in social care and the effect it is having on the NHS, and the effect that taking money from public health budgets is having? Although I accept that he does not agree with the Health Committee’s appraisal of the £10 billion figure, I am afraid I stick by those figures.
Mr Hunt
I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend. I respect her passion for the NHS, her knowledge of it and her background in it, so I will always listen carefully to anything she says. I hope she will understand that just as she speaks plainly today, I need to speak plainly back and say that I do not agree with the letter she wrote today, and I am afraid I do think that her calculations are wrong.
The use of the £10 billion figure was not, as she said in her letter, incorrect. The Government have never claimed that there was an extra £10 billion increase in the Department of Health budget. Indeed, the basis of that number has not even come from the Government; it has come from NHS England and its calculations as to what it needs to implement the forward view. As I told the Select Committee, I have always accepted that painful and difficult economies in central budgets will be needed to fund that plan. What NHS England asked for was money to implement the forward view. It asked for £8 billion over five years; in fact, it got £10 billion over six years, or £9 billion over five years—whichever one we take, it is either £1 billion or £2 billion more than the minimum it said it needed.
I think my hon. Friend quoted Simon Stevens as saying that NHS England had not got what it asked for. He was talking not about the request in the forward view, but in terms of the negotiations over the profile of the funding we have with the Treasury. The reason that the funding increases are so small in the second and third year of the Parliament is precisely that we listened to him when he said that he wanted the amount to be front- loaded. That is why we put £6 billion of the £10 billion up front in the first two years of the programme.
I fully accept that what happens in the social care system and in public health have a big impact on the NHS, but on social care we have introduced a precept for local authorities combined with an increase in the better care fund—[Interruption.] This is a precept, which 144 of 152 local authorities are taking advantage of. That means that a great number of them are increasing spending on social care. It will come on top of the deeper, faster integration of the health and social care systems that we know needs to happen.
On public health, I accept that difficult economies need to be made, but it is not just about public spending. This Government have a proud record of banning the display sale of tobacco, introducing standardised packaging for tobacco, introducing a sugary drinks tax and putting more money into school sports. There are lots of things that we can do on public health that make a big difference.
On capital, I agree with my hon. Friend about the pressure on the capital budget, but hospitals have a big opportunity to make use of the land they sit on, which they often do not use to its fullest extent, as a way to bridge that difficult gap.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill
Sarah Wollaston ExcerptsMonday 24th October 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Act 2017 View all Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hunt
Yes. My hon. Friend makes an important point. The third part of the Bill will provide for much better data collection to allow that analysis to take place. We are also seeking to break down the barriers between the pharmacy sector and general practice. During this Parliament, we will be financing 2,000 additional pharmacists to work in general practice so that we can learn exactly those sorts of lessons.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Further to that important point about biosimilars, and in welcoming this legislation and the opportunity to create savings for the NHS, will the Secretary of State also address the long-standing issues around Lucentis and Avastin? The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) updated the House about the barriers in both domestic and European legislation that prevent the use of Avastin—it is not licensed for wet age-related macular degeneration—but the scale of savings could be so vast that there is a case for introducing measures in the Bill to allow for such issues to be addressed.
Mr Hunt
I am happy to look into that—some of my own constituents have been affected by that issue. I am not aware that there is scope to consider that important point in the Bill, but we should reflect on what we can do to deal with some of the anomalies in the drug licensing regime that lead to the unintended consequences that my hon. Friend talks about.
We have a statutory scheme for companies that are not in the PPRS that is based on a cut to the list price of products, rather than a payment mechanism on company sales. Since the introduction of the rebate mechanism in the PPRS, the volumes of drugs going through it have been lower than estimated. At the same time, the statutory scheme has delivered lower savings than predicted. The inequity between the two schemes has led to some companies making commercial decisions to divest products from the PPRS to the statutory scheme, further reducing the savings to the NHS.
Last year, the Government consulted on options to reform the statutory medicines pricing scheme by introducing a payment mechanism, in place of the statutory price cut, broadly similar to that which exists in the PPRS. Our clear intention was to put in place voluntary and statutory schemes that were broadly comparable in terms of savings. Of course, companies are free to decide which scheme to join and may move from one to the other depending on the other benefits they offer, but the savings to the NHS offered by both schemes should be broadly the same.
NHS respondents to the consultation supported our position, but the pharmaceutical industry queried whether the Government had the powers to introduce a statutory payment system. Following a review of our legislative powers, we concluded that amendments should be made to clarify the existing powers to make it clear that the Government do have the power to introduce a payment mechanism in the statutory scheme. The Bill does that by clarifying the provisions in the NHS Act 2006 to put it beyond doubt that the Government can introduce a payment mechanism in the statutory scheme. The Bill also amends the 2006 Act so that it contains essential provisions for enforcement action. Payments due under either a future voluntary or statutory scheme would be recoverable through the courts if necessary. That would include the power to recover payments due from any company that leaves one scheme to join the other.
The powers proposed in the Bill to control the cost of medicines are a modest addition to the powers already provided for in the 2006 Act to control the price of and profit associated with medicines used by the health service. The powers are necessary to ensure that the Government have the scope and flexibility to respond to changes in the commercial environment. The intended application of the powers will, of course, be set out in regulations. We will provide illustrative regulations to reassure the House that we will be fair and proportionate in exercising the powers.
Tobacco Control Plan
Sarah Wollaston Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I commend the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) for his tireless campaign on tobacco control and for introducing the debate.
In 1974, 46% of adults smoked, but that figure has now fallen to 16.9%. That is not an accident; it has been because of the concerted action of campaigners, cross-party working and Government support over the years. It has all been about price, marketing, availability, smoke-free environments, education, targeted support to help people to cut down and quit, and the availability of less harmful alternatives.
I also commend the Government and the Conservative-led coalition Government for their action over the past six years. We have seen an end to point-of-sale displays—the last refuge of advertising and marketing—and, finally, the introduction of standardised or what we might call “truth” packaging, which allows people to see the product and what it does to them. We have also seen further protection for children, with bans on proxy sales and on smoking in cars with children present.
The evidence shows that intervention saves lives, and in the case of smoking it saves lives very quickly. It can have a real effect in the same year on foetal, maternal and child health and on reducing cardiovascular disease and complications in surgery. It is definitely worth doing, both in the short and the long term. It should set a template for other public health measures, because it shows that they really make a difference and are definitely worthwhile.
As the hon. Member for Stockton North so clearly stated, however, these improvements do not mean we should be complacent. There are still 76,000 preventable and premature deaths a year as a result of smoking. Not only does that have a devastating impact on individuals and their families; it has other implications, not just for mortality but for the disease burden and the lives lived in very poor health. In my 24 years on the frontline in the NHS I saw that at first hand. Living with COPD and end-stage COPD is a dreadful burden on individuals.
There is also the cost to the NHS and the issue of health inequality, which we have heard about already. The cost to the NHS is about £2 billion a year. If we are to look at the long-term sustainability of our NHS, we must tackle that. Things can be done. Almost a quarter of hospital admissions for lung disease are attributable to smoking; we can do better on that.
As the hon. Member for Stockton North pointed out, the Prime Minister spoke in her first speech on the steps of Downing Street about the “burning injustice” of the life expectancy gap between rich and poor. I absolutely support her determination to tackle that; we also need to tackle the gap between rich and poor in healthy lives lived, which is also very important. The stark reality is that those who earn less than £10,000 a year are twice as likely to smoke as those who earn more than £40,000 a year. If the Government are serious about tackling health inequality, they have to have an effective tobacco control plan.
Of course, health inequality is a multi-factor problem. It is not just about issues such as smoking and obesity—there are many other important issues, such as education, poverty and housing—but we can make a difference both quickly and in the long term by continuing to tackle smoking. I really hope the Minister will acknowledge that it is about preventing new smokers from coming on board, helping existing smokers to cut down and quit, and imposing greater responsibility and accountability on the industry. The five year forward view rightly calls for a radical upgrade in prevention and public health, which is essential for the long-term sustainability of the NHS. Now is not the time to cut back on the services that deliver prevention and help for people to cut down and quit, but sadly that is what is happening.
I am afraid a lot comes down to budgets. In 2015, we saw a £200 million in-year cut to public health budgets, and that is set to continue. The Health Committee’s recent inquiry into public health, which has now reported, found that there will be a real-terms reduction in public health budgets from £3.47 billion in 2015 to £3 billion by 2021. That will hit front-line services. Around 4.1% of total health spending is currently in public health, and that percentage is definitely set to decline, which is absolutely a false economy. We should be investing now to make the savings we need for the future—not just for individuals, though of course they should be the priority, but for the long-term sustainability of the NHS. That would be cost-effective.
We are already seeing the impact on front-line services: local authority stop smoking services have been decommissioned in Manchester, for example, and in Worcestershire they are now available only to pregnant women. We also need to look at how CCGs are withdrawing their support for GPs to prescribe nicotine replacement therapy. That is worrying, because there is a very clear evidence base for such services, as we have heard—I will not repeat what the hon. Member for Stockton North set out so eloquently. Cutting them is the worst example of poor value for money and letting people down. I really hope that when devising an effective strategy the Minister will look at that and make sure that those services are available, both within local authorities and at the frontline of NHS services.
As a former GP, I know the role GPs can play in persuading those who are in the most danger, because they see people when they are suffering the complications of smoking and their intervention at that point is often the trigger for people to quit effectively. But GPs are now left in a position where they cannot prescribe the products that we know might help patients. We absolutely must not abandon one of the most cost-effective measures in healthcare, and we must not add extra cost to the future.
Members in the main Chamber of the House of Commons are discussing baby loss this afternoon, and I am sorry that none of us can be in two places at once. However, it is essential to remember that if the Government are to succeed in their aim to reduce neonatal stillbirths and maternal deaths by 50% by 2030, we have to consider maternal smoking. Sadly, around 300 perinatal deaths every year are attributable to smoking. There are very important reasons across the board for tackling this.
Finally, I will touch on the issue of e-cigarettes, because there is some controversy around them. Some people fear that the industry will take over and that e-cigarettes will become a gateway into smoking, but the evidence so far does not support that. Of course we need to be vigilant and make sure that these products are not being marketed to children to push nicotine addiction, which then steps on to smoking, but so far the evidence is not there. Nevertheless, we need to watch the marketing side of things.
There is no doubt that for many people e-cigarettes are a gateway out of smoking or a way to reduce the amount that they use. It is estimated that in 2015 around 18,000 long-term smokers were helped to cut down and quit by such products. We should be encouraging their use, because the evidence supports that. We are currently members of the European Union and so subject to the tobacco directive, which will mean further restrictions on the use of e-cigarettes. Will the Minister confirm that she will look carefully at the emerging evidence to see where we want to fit in with and adopt that directive and, perhaps, where we feel that it might not be appropriate for the UK? It is an emerging picture, but the overall message should be that we should encourage the use of e-cigarettes and make them available to people when they need to use them.
I know that other Members wish to speak, so I shall not detain the House any further, other than to say that, like the hon. Member for Stockton North, I hope the Minister will be able to confirm today the timetable for the introduction of the tobacco control plan. I know that she will be personally determined to ensure it is effective.
European Medicines Agency
Sarah Wollaston Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend pre-empts the points that I will move on to. The issue of delay is really important.
I was talking about the option of staying within the European economic area. Sadly, from what we are hearing, and from what is possibly happening in the Chamber at this very moment, that is an option the Government do not seem to be entertaining. If we do not, pharmaceutical companies might have to apply separately to the UK’s MHRA if they want to supply a drug in the UK, as my hon. Friend has pointed out. Most commentators predict that that is likely to lead to a slower, less efficient regulatory process.
The Association of Medical Research Charities has pointed out that the strong and aligned medicines regulation across the EU, underpinned by science, is essential to bringing new medicines to patients in a way that minimises delay and costs. At the weekend, the chief executive of AstraZeneca made exactly that point—that, without the EMA, NHS patients would get new drugs more slowly and drug costs to the NHS would rise, meaning less money for the NHS; not quite what was written on the bus. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the Government believe that people voted for less money for the NHS. That is certainly not the general understanding.
There is also an associated worry that smaller biotech companies, the lifeblood of our future prosperity, which in many cases are pioneering revolutionary treatments, will lack the capacity to file multiple applications at once and to handle all the associated paperwork. Some will struggle on, and we wish them every success, but I fear others will go elsewhere, to our detriment.
The MHRA finds itself in a potentially difficult place. It has commented, carefully, in response to the referendum result:
“We will continue to work to the highest levels of excellence and quality, working with and supporting our customers, partners and stakeholders to protect health and improve lives. Working closely with government, we will consider the implications for the work of the Agency. We will continue to make a major contribution globally to improving public health through the effective regulation of medicines and medical devices, underpinned by science and research.”
Those words, and the intention behind them, are encouraging, if unsurprising, but the MHRA has been put in a difficult and uncertain position. No major member state has left the EU before, so there is no model to follow for disentangling the UK’s medicines and life science industry from the EMA. The EMA and the MHRA work symbiotically and their separation is likely to be complex. The MHRA may be left with a bigger workload, and pharmaceutical developers may well prioritise the much larger EU market and delay securing regulatory approval in the UK. Indeed, US and Japanese companies already file in their home markets first before seeking approval in the European economic area. The UK, with its much smaller market, will be in danger of being at the back of the queue.
As we have heard, the EMA has allowed UK patients faster access to new treatments. It is worth noting that, in Australia and Canada, where medicines are licensed nationally, patients have slower access. On average, new medicines come to market six to 12 months later than in the US and the European Union. It seems likely we will be in the same position. Is that really what people voted for—longer delays in getting life-saving treatments? Again, I seek the Minister’s view.
The damage is not only done to us. The BioIndustry Association warns that, without Britain, the European Medicines Agency could also end up losing out. It would sorely miss the MHRA’s strengths in patient safety regulation. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has said that European colleagues are desperate for the MHRA to be retained as part of the regulatory process, owing to the high regard in which it is held. Both the ABPI and the Association of Medical Research Charities advocate ongoing regulatory co-operation between the EMA and the MHRA. The ABPI suggests that there is a strong rationale for seeking regulatory co-operation on the basis of the public health benefits to patients. The organisation says that strong, globally aligned medicines regulation has proven effective in bringing new medicines to patients quickly, without the additional costs of multiple regulatory systems. I believe we should do all we can to safeguard that.
The Government wrote in July that their renegotiation on the new European Union-United Kingdom relationship includes looking at the relationship between the UK and the EU medicines regulatory framework. I would appreciate an update on what they now believe that new relationship might look like and whether regulatory co-operation might still be possible.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. These points were raised with the Select Committee on Health in the run-up to the referendum. Will he join me in calling for people to submit further evidence to the Health Committee, now that we have launched our inquiry into what the Government’s priorities should be during their negotiations on the terms of our withdrawal?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the Chair of the Health Committee for her intervention. I certainly encourage those in my area and others to take up that offer. We will be doing so.
Let me come to the most tangible issue of all: the future physical location of the European Medicines Agency. Just last month, the Government said in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne):
“The future arrangements which apply in relation to European Union institutions based in the United Kingdom should be determined once the United Kingdom has left the EU. It is too early to speculate on the future location of the European Medicines Agency.”
Early or not, speculation is intense, and others are moving fast to gain advantage. The EMA stated in July that it
“welcomes the interest expressed by some Member States to host the Agency in future”,
while stressing that the decision will be taken
“by common agreement among the representatives of the Member States.”
Various member states are already vying to host the EMA. The Danish Prime Minister has said he is looking at it. The Irish Health Minister has said that attracting the EMA to Dublin is one of the “more interesting” opportunities afforded by Brexit. Italy, Sweden and Spain are also reportedly expressing an interest.
The EMA employs some 900 people. What will happen to their jobs? Will those people move with the agency? Inevitably, there is concern that, should the EMA relocate outside the UK, there will be a knock-on effect on the wider pharmaceuticals and life sciences industries. When they next decide where to locate and invest, does losing the EMA hinder or help? In my view, the answer is fairly clear, but I would welcome the Minister’s view.
We risk losing jobs. We risk losing influence. On a practical level, any company that sells to the European economic area has to have a qualified person for pharmacovigilance—an experienced, senior person based in the European economic area. If we are outside that area, QPPVs would have to move out of the UK or lose their jobs. There are 1,299 QPPVs currently in the UK. That is another potential loss, and of course, every highly-skilled job lost has a multiplier effect.
Perhaps the Minister can give us an estimate of how much all this will cost us. When I asked the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that question in the House on Monday, he had no answer. I appreciate that the Minister, following the lead given by the Brexit Ministers, is unlikely to be able to provide detailed, concrete information at this stage. I have some sympathy; if you do not have a plan, it is probably best to say as little as possible. However, I hope that the Government understand just how important it is for the UK to retain the closest relationship possible with the European Medicines Agency. It is important for patients. It is important for businesses. It is important for innovation, and it is important for our economy as a whole.
David Mowat
Clearly when I used the word “finish”, people sprang into action. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a written answer to his questions on muscular dystrophy.
We do world-class science in this country. We must continue to do so, and to have a world-class pharmaceutical industry, with all that means for value added and input to the Exchequer. Governments are not the reason why we are among the best in the world in gene therapy and cell therapy, and they are not the reason why we have built £60 billion pharmaceutical organisations GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca. It is important that we get the regulatory environment right, and the Department of Health and the Department for Exiting the European Union will ensure that the negotiations we are about to have address those issues.
Dr Wollaston
Does the Minister agree that the reason why we have such world-class expertise is the workforce? We must be absolutely clear and send a message to the world that, within our science and research community, we will not be maintaining a list of who is here from the EU and who is a British scientist. We must unequivocally send a message that Britain is open to scientists, researchers and the medical and healthcare workforce from around the world and the EU, not just from Britain.
David Mowat
That last intervention—I say “last” somewhat hopefully—unites us all. It would be ridiculous if the world-class science that we must continue to do compromised on matters like that. I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s point, and there is agreement across Government about that. If we need to make that clearer, we should.
I will finish now, as nobody is springing to their feet. I thank all hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Cambridge, for putting the issue on the agenda. It is right and important that the topic is at the forefront of our negotiations, and that we get the right answer in the end.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Wollaston Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mowat
Yes, I am happy to meet in that context. The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Success regime is about a transfer of resources from the community hospitals to care at home and domiciliary care. That is not necessarily the wrong thing to do, but it must be done right, and I am happy to meet.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I welcome greater integration, but the Minister will be aware that there are grave concerns about the effect of cuts to social care on the NHS. More and more patients are spending greater time in more expensive settings in hospital when they could be better looked after in their own homes or in the community, but cuts to social care make that impossible. Will the Minister set out what appraisal the Government are making of the effect and the damage to the NHS of cuts to social care?
David Mowat
My hon. Friend is right: social care funding is tight. It is also true to say that those parts of the country that do the best in this regard—there are some that do considerably better than others—have integrated social care and health most effectively. On the budget itself, there is some disparity among different local authorities. About a quarter of local authorities have increased their adult social care budget by 5% or more this year.