| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Hospital Readmissions
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients aged 75 years and over were readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge for each quarter since 1998-99; and what percentage of discharges this represents. [118687]
Ms Stuart: The table shows the number of patients aged 75 years and over who were readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge for each quarter since 1998-99; and the percentage of discharges this represents.
Source:
NHS Executive Quarterly Monitoring Activity
12 Apr 2000 : Column: 214W
The information given is collected by health authorities and returned to the National Health Service Executive as part of the quarterly monitoring process. It includes all specialties except psychiatry and learning disability.
Mental Health Act (Charges)
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance he has given to local authorities about charging people receiving services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983; what estimate he has made of the number of (a) local authorities charging people receiving services under section 117 and (b) people being charged for services under section 117; what estimate he has made of the cost of compensating people incorrectly charged for services under section 117; what estimate he has made of the cost to local authorities of abolishing charges for services under section 117; and if he will make a statement. [118795]
Mr. Hutton: On 10 February 2000 the Department issued a circular to local authorities and health authorities in England drawing attention to the High Court judgment in the case of R v. London Borough of Richmond ex parte Watson (HSC 2000/003: LAC (2000)3). Local authorities still charging for services provided as part of after-care under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 were advised that they should immediately cease to do so. The Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) has carried out a survey of local authorities in England and Wales with the aim of identifying how many local authorities charge for section 117 after-care services and the estimated costs of providing such services free of charge. We understand that the results have not been published.
Wheelchairs
Mr. Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce the conclusions of his assessment of the recommendations of the evaluation study by the University of York Health Economics Consortium of the Powered Wheelchair and Voucher Scheme initiatives. [118792]
Mr. Hutton: The report of the evaluation conducted by the York Health Economics Consortium reached two major conclusions. First, additional funds were needed if the electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchair (EPIOCs) scheme is to meet its objectives fully. Secondly,
12 Apr 2000 : Column: 215W
the voucher scheme had largely met its broad objectives of improving choice but relatively few wheelchair users had benefited from it when the evaluation was conducted. The report recommended that continuation of the voucher scheme should be a matter for local discretion. However, since then the take-up of vouchers has risen steadily.
We have committed ourselves to ending the variations in health care provision across the country. For that reason, we could not agree that voucher schemes should become discretionary. We want all disabled people to be able to exercise choice. We therefore announced on 29 March that the current funding level of £14 million for powered wheelchairs and voucher schemes will be made recurrent from 1 April. We decided that:
(i) continued allocation of £14 million should be free of distinctions between what should be spent on powered wheelchairs or voucher schemes, and that health authorities and provider services should consult with service users and take a flexible approach to ensuring this money meets local needs and priorities in wheelchair services; and:
(ii) that all services should continue to operate a voucher scheme which offers users a choice in having a wheelchair which meets their needs.
On 29 March we placed the York Health Economics Consortium's report on the National Health Services internet site to ensure service commissioners and providers have access to it.
Mr. Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to continue the provision of ring-fenced funds for the EPIOC scheme and the wheelchair voucher scheme on the same basis as in 1996. [118797]
Mr. Hutton: Funds were ring-fenced between 1996-2000 to phase in £50 million for the electrically powered indoor/outdoor chairs (EPIOCs) and voucher schemes. Guidance indicated that funding level in the final year, 1999-2000, would become recurrent in National Health Service baseline budgets.
On 29 March I announced plans to allocate to health authorities £14 million for EPIOCs and the wheelchair voucher scheme in 2000-01. This sum is some £6 million greater than that provided in 1996-97. The money will be added recurrently to health authority baselines rather than on a one year at a time basis as in the past, to secure the long-term future of both schemes. Also, health authorities will now be able to use the money flexibly to meet the needs and preferences of local service users, whether that be for EPIOCs, vouchers, or other wheelchair service priorities.
Day Centres
Mr. Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the charges made by each local authority in England and Wales for attendance at day centres for the physically disabled in each financial year since 1997. [118796]
Mr. Hutton: Information on the charges made by each local authority in England for attendance at day centres for the physically disabled is not collected centrally. However information on the recoupment of fees and charges by each local authority is available at the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/pss--stat.htm.
12 Apr 2000 : Column: 216W
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
Bovine TB
Mr. Paice: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on variations in the susceptibility of cattle to TB infection. [118508]
Ms Quin [holding answer 10 April 2000]: There is no such research in place at present, but this is one of the issues being considered by the TB Husbandry Panel, which is due to report shortly.
Mr. Paice: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the (a) terms of reference and (b) financial resources available to the TB Husbandry Panel. [118514]
Ms Quin [holding answer 10 April 2000]: The aim of the Husbandry Panel is to identify current or future farm management (husbandry) measures which will assist in developing a sustainable policy to control TB in cattle, and its terms of reference are:
- The Panel will assess the scientific evidence on the effects of cattle husbandry in relation to Bovine TB, and in particular:
- a. review the available literature;
- b. take oral and/or written evidence from interested parties, especially those with expertise in cattle farming and TB risk factors, to identify the current expert opinion on best practice.
- Taking account of the epidemiological investigations launched by MAFF following consultation with the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, the Panel will, within three months of appointment, produce a report which summarises the state of knowledge on the effects of husbandry on controlling bovine TB, and which:
- a. identifies approaches being taken by research and development funders which will fill gaps in knowledge and their relative timescales;
- b. makes recommendations on the steps and responsibility which need to be taken to encourage careful management practices relating to tuberculosis in cattle;
- c. makes recommendations on how best to evaluate husbandry measures for future use, including advice on whether husbandry experiments are justifiable at this stage, and if so, which experiments might be most promising at this stage.
Mr. Paice: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the report of the TB Husbandry Panel and if, following receipt, he will publish it in full. [118507]
Ms Quin [holding answer 10 April 2000]: The Panel is expected to report at the end of April. The report will be published in full.
Mr. Paice: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current research projects associated with Bovine TB, indicating for each the cost in 2000-01 and the total cost for the project. [118515]
Ms Quin [holding answer 10 April 2000]: The current bovine TB research projects, together with total cost and costs for 2000-01 are shown in the table.
12 Apr 2000 : Column: 217W
12 Apr 2000 : Column: 217W
In addition substantial new research into the pathogenesis of M. bovis in cattle will be carried out in 2000-01 and succeeding years/ Detailed protocols are being developed and precise costings are not yet available.
Mr. Paice: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will request the TB Forum to consider requiring the TB status of individual animals to be included in the cattle movement recording system. [118424]
Ms Quin [holding answer 10 April 2000]: The TB Forum has already discussed this issue which has significant practical implications. The Forum is considering whether the objective could be achieved by simpler means.
Mr. Paice: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the risks of TB infection from slurry spreading practices. [118509]
Ms Quin [holding answer 10 April 2000]: There is no such research in place at present, but this is one of the issues being considered by the TB Husbandry Panel, which is due to report shortly.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |