| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dorset and Somerset Strategic Health Authority
Mr. Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding her Department allocated per head of population in (a) Taunton constituency, (b) Dorset and Somerset strategic health authority and (c) England in each year since 2001. [64307]
Andy Burnham: The Department makes revenue allocations to primary care trusts (PCTs), not constituencies or strategic health authorities (SHAs).
Allocations were first made to PCTs in 2003-04. Prior to this, funding was allocated to health authorities (HAs).
Allocations per head of population to PCTs covered by Dorset and Somerset SHA and the England average are shown in tables 1 and 2.
The majority of the population of Taunton constituency is resident in Taunton Deane PCT.
| Table 1: HA allocations per head of population | ||
| (£) | ||
| Organisation | 2001-02 | 2002-03 |
| Table 2: PCT allocations per head of population | |||||
| (£) | |||||
| PCT | 2003-04 | 2004-0 | 2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 |
| Notes: It is not possible to compare allocations rounds for the following reasons: organisational changes and changes made to the weighted capitation formula for each allocations round, mean that comparisons between allocations rounds would not be on a like with like basis; changes in the services for which PCTs are responsible for funding changes over time. For example, 2006-07 is the first year that primary medical services were incorporated into revenue allocations. |
Foster Review
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when she expects to publish the findings of the Foster Review of non-medical healthcare regulation; [70820]
(2) when she expects to publish the regulatory impact assessment of proposed changes to the regulation of osteopaths; [70821]
(3) what discussions she has had with the osteopathic profession regarding changes to the regulation of osteopaths; and what assessment she has made of the merits of changes to patient care. [70822]
Andy Burnham: We will publish our decisions on the review of non-medical professional regulation and on the Chief Medical Officer's review of medical revalidation and related subjects in due course. A statement will be made at that point. The reviews used a wide range of evidence, including from the osteopathic profession.
General Practitioners
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her Department’s press release of 21 March 2006 on the proposed general practitioner Systems of Choice initiative, what assessment she has made of the impact that the initiative will have on contracts with local and national service providers which commit the NHS to buy a minimum volume of services and systems. [63946]
Caroline Flint: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Monday 27 February 2006, Official Report, column 452W.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her Department's press release of 21 March 2006 on the proposed general practitioner Systems of Choice initiative, whether general practitioners will be able to claim back their costs from primary care trust budgets. [63947]
Caroline Flint: Under the general practitioner Systems of Choice (GPSoC) proposals funding would be provided for general practice systems that have achieved a GPSoC level of compliance. Capital funding for any necessary hardware improvements, and revenue funding for compliant systems provided by existing system providers, would be included in primary care trust allocations. The NHS Connecting for Health agency will continue to fund local service provider-supplied systems.
Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of general practitioner practices in West Lancashire make referrals using the choose and book system. [64295]
Caroline Flint: About 40 per cent. (10 general practitioner practices out of a total of 25) have made at least one booking through the choose and book system.
Source:
Connecting for Health
Mr. Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners covered out-of-office hours in (a) England and (b) Taunton constituency in each year since 1997. [64345]
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The information is not collected by the Department. It is for individual primary care trusts to ensure that out-of-hours provision in their areas continues to be improved and developed into a better service for patients.
Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her statement of 18 April 2006, Official Report, column 4, on the general practitioner contract, what the evidential basis was for her statement that thousands of people were alive and well as a result of the contract. [65511]
Caroline Flint: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 4 May, Official Report, column 1776W.
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the number of urban dwellers who live more than one mile from their nearest GP practice or outreach surgery. [69750]
Andy Burnham: None. However, under section 16CC(1) of the National Health Service Act 1977, primary care trusts must, to the extent that they consider necessary to meet all reasonable requirements, ensure the provision of primary medical services in their localities.
Gershon Review
Mr. Rob Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much she expects Information and Communication Technology changes to contribute to the Gershon efficiency savings in her Department in 2007-08. [63514]
Caroline Flint: The Gershon report “Releasing Resources to the Front Line” identified three main contributors to front line service (productive time) efficiency—information and communication technology (ICT), process redesign and work force reform. Overall, we expect this part of the efficiency programme to deliver savings of at least £2,700 million per year by March 2008.
Our delivery strategy for this programme recognises that efficiencies are achieved by technology, process and work force changes being delivered together. The national health service uses an integrated service improvement programme (ISIP) to plan and manage service improvement. This programme is a key element of implementing the national programme for information technology. More information is available at www.isip.nhs.uk.
The approach to measuring benefits reflects this delivery strategy. It therefore measures overall outcome changes rather than the separate contribution of ICT or work force or process change. This approach is explained in the Department's efficiency technical note which is available on the Department's website at:
www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/12/41/37/04124137.pdf.
Health Trusts
Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to review the market forces factor used in the allocation of funding to health trusts; [71129]
(2) who the members are of the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. [71130]
Andy Burnham [holding answers 15 May 2006]: The Department has commissioned a review of the market forces factor (MFF) component of the weighted-capitation formula. This review will inform revenue allocations to primary care trusts (PCTs) post 2007-08.
The review is being overseen by the advisory committee on resource allocation (ACRA). ACRA is an independent body consisting of national health service management, general practitioners and academics.
The ACRA members are shown in the table.
Healthcare Commission
Mr. Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many lay associates have been trained by the Healthcare Commission for handling complaints against the NHS; how much it cost the commission to provide the training; and how much has been paid to associates attending mandatory training courses; [71395]
(2) how many independent panels involving lay associates have been convened by the Healthcare Commission for the investigation of complaints against the NHS. [71397]
Andy Burnham [holding answer 16 May 2006]: The chairman of the Healthcare Commission has confirmed that when the commission took on its present role in the independent review of complaints in July 2004, it recruited approximately 250 lay panel members. All those recruited underwent three days training for which they received expenses of £250 a day. In addition, there were costs associated with the room hire and some speakers at the training events. These costs are not reported separately from wider commission expenditure on such items, but the commission estimates that expenditure on venues, speakers and accommodation might have been about £100,000.
The chairman of the Healthcare Commission has confirmed that lay panels were involved in only four of the 7,400 cases completed in 2005-06 and that it is unlikely that there will be a significant number of panels in the future. The chairman has added that the commission is seeking alternative ways of using the valuable experience of some lay panel members. Approximately 100 lay panellists worked as office- based case managers in 2005-06. The commission is also developing options for using lay panellists as home-based associate case managers.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |