| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Nov 2003 : Column 597W—continued
Commission for Patient andPublic Involvement in Health
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list each local network provider awarded a contract by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, the areas they have been awarded contracts for, and their registered office address; how many patient forums they are responsible for; which aspects of the service they have sub-contracted; and to whom they have sub-contracted. [134066]
Ms Rosie Winterton [holding answer 27 October 2003]: A full list of local network providers, the area they cover and the patients' forums they support is available on the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health's (CPPIH's) website at www.cppih.org. A copy of the relevant information has been placed in the Library. Local network providers have to seek approval from the CPPIH to sub contract the services for which they have been contracted to provide. No such requests have been made.
Data Protection
Dr. Iddon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to (a) primary care trusts, (b) NHS trusts and (c) agencies of his Department on S.I., 2002, No. 2905, The Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002 and the involvement of hon. Members with cases; and if he will make a statement. [135261]
Ms Rosie Winterton: Guidance was issued to all primary care trusts, national health service trusts and agencies of the Department in July 2003 as part of the "Confidentiality: NHS Code of Practice". The guidance states the following in the case of disclosures of health data to hon. and right hon. Members.
- "If an investigation is appropriately authorised, disclosure will meet tests of necessity and appropriateness. The minimum necessary information should be disclosed. There is a balance to be drawn between ensuring that a patient has understood and properly consented to a disclosure of information and needlessly obstructing an investigation. Careful consideration of any written authorisation and prompt action are key, e.g. where an MP states, in writing, that s/he has a patient's consent for disclosure this may be accepted without further resort to the patient."
Plutonium Contamination
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent studies his Department has evaluated relating to the level of plutonium in the teeth of children (a) in the Sellafield area and (b) elsewhere in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [129247]
Miss Melanie Johnson: The Department of Health funded studies on the contamination of the population of the United Kingdom by environmental plutonium and other radionuclides in the late 1990s.
4 Nov 2003 : Column 598W
The samples chosen for analysis were either teeth, removed for orthodontic purposes, or 24 hour urine samples. Teeth, mostly intact first pre-molars, were collected by district health authorities, batched into samples of 50 teeth, then analysed for plutonium-239 + 240 by alpha-spectrometry. Additional single teeth were analysed for their total alpha-activity by alpha-track counting with Tastrak 'R' and additional batches were analysed for radiostrontium. The results showed that the average concentrations of total alpha-emitters and radiostrontium were approximately three orders of magnitude greater than the equivalent concentrations of plutonium isotopes. Analysis indicated that the concentrations of plutonium, but not strontium-90 or total alpha-emitters decreased with increasing distance from the west Cumbrian coast and its Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing plant—suggesting that this plant is a source of plutonium contamination in the wider population of the British Isles. Nevertheless, the measured average absolute concentrations of plutonium-239 + 240 were so low that they are considered to present an insignificant radiological hazard. Moreover, additional analyses showed that the concentrations of other "high toxicity", natural alpha-emitting radionuclides (radium, thorium and uranium) were much higher than the levels of plutonium.
Trainee Dentists
Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to increase the number of dentists training in (a) the North West, (b) East Lancashire and (c) England. [135496]
Ms Rosie Winterton: We are currently undertaking the first review of the dental workforce since 1987 in consultation with the dental profession—professional bodies, dental academics, as well as the British Dental Association. We hope to publish the review by the end of this year. The findings of this review will enable us to consider both the number of dentists and the location of their training in England.
Departmental Expenditure (Official Residences)
Mr. Flight: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent on (a) maintenance, (b) renovation, (c) council tax and (d) running costs of residential properties used by Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [134691]
Ms Rosie Winterton: The Department and its executive agencies have no residential properties on its estate.
Insulin
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in the UK use (a) animal insulin and (b) GM insulin for treatment of diabetes; [134781]
- (2) what the cost to the NHS of prescribing (a) animal insulin and (b) GM insulin for treatment of diabetes was in the last 12 months. [134783]
4 Nov 2003 : Column 599W
Ms Rosie Winterton: Data on the number of people using these insulins is not collected. However, the table shows the number of prescription items that were dispensed in the community in England, and their cost, in the twelve months ended June 2003.
| Number of prescription items (Thousands) | Net ingredient cost (£000s) | |
|---|---|---|
| Highly purified animal insulin | 128.1 | 4,217.2 |
| Human sequence (GM Insulin) | 3,522.0 | 150,528.8 |
| All Insulins | 3,650.0 | 154,746.0 |
Notes:
The data is from the Prescription Cost Anallysis (PCA) system which covers all prescription items that are dispensed in the community in England. This does not include drugs dispensed in hospitals or private prescriptions.
Insulins are those defined in the British National Formulary BNF) paragraph 6.1.1, "Insulins". Insulin drugs have been grouped into highly purified animal and human sequence (GM) insulin in line with the British National Formulary (BNF)
Doctors write prescriptions on a prescription form. Each single item written on the form is counted as a prescription item. The net ingredient cost refers to the cost (which the dispenser is reimbursed) of the drug before discounts and does not include any dispensing costs or fees.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in the UK are known to be unable to use GM insulin for the treatment of diabetes; [134782]
- (2) how many users of GM insulins for treatment of Type 1 diabetes have been found dead attributable to dead in bed syndrome in each of the last 10 years; [134785]
(3) what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) assessed regarding the (i) efficacy and (ii) side-effects of GM insulin against animal insulin on diabetes patients; [134788]
(4) what assessment he has made of the side-effects of GM insulin on certain diabetes sufferers. [134802]
Ms Rosie Winterton: We have no estimate of the numbers of people with diabetes who are known to be unable to use genetically modified (human) insulin. Decisions on the most suitable type of insulin should be made by people with diabetes in consultation with their healthcare providers. The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has kept the safety of human insulins under close review. The CSM concluded that, although some patients have experienced problems on transferring to human insulin and are better suited to animal derived insulins, there is no evidence of a safety concern specific to human insulin. The CSM Sub-Committee on Pharmacovigilance reviewed the issue again in September 2000, following the publication of a systematic review of the literature. 52 randomised controlled trials were identified, in addition to 56 studies of other designs and case reports. The Sub-Committee considered the paper and agreed with the conclusions of the authors that there is no evidence of a safety problem specific to human insulin. In 2002, the Cochrane Library published a review of human insulin versus animal insulin in people with diabetes mellitus. This review included randomised controlled trials of at least one
4 Nov 2003 : Column 600W
month in duration. No significant differences in metabolic control or hypoglycaemic episodes between various insulin species could be found. Data on the rare occurrence of dead in bed syndrome is not collected.
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures the Government are taking to secure the continued availability of animal insulin to people who have shown a resistance to GM insulin for the treatment of diabetes; [134784]
- (2) what discussions he has had with his Danish counterparts about the continued supply of animal insulin; [134786]
(3) from where the NHS sources (a) animal insulin and (b) GM insulin; [134787]
(4) what discussions he has had with the Insulin Dependent Diabetes Trust about the continued supply of animal insulin to diabetes patients in the UK. [134801]
Ms Rosie Winterton: There are two companies supplying animal insulin in the United Kingdom; CP Pharmaceuticals and Novo Nordisk. Both companies have confirmed that they will continue to supply animal insulin for the foreseeable future. Officials are in regular contact with these companies. I have had no discussions with either the Insulin Dependent Diabetes Trust or my Danish counterparts on this subject.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |