Select Committee on Health Written Evidence


Supplementary letter from the British Medical Association (ISTC 33B)

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND ALTERNATIVE PROVIDER MEDICAL SERVICES

  I am writing to raise an issue which I hope you will find relevant in considering your Committee's final report to be produced following the inquiry into Independent Sector Treatment Centres (ISTCs).

  Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) is one of the four routes available to primary care organisations to make provision for primary medical services to patients. APMS opens up the provision of essential services to providers other than General Medical Services (GMS) and Personal Medical Services (PMS) practices. Organisations and individuals who can hold APMS contracts include independent sector and voluntary sector organisations as well as groups of health professionals.

  Whilst GP practices working under PMS or GMS contracts are specifically included as Public Bodies under the Freedom of Information Act, like ISTCs, APMS contractors do not fall under the provisions of the Act.

  The BMA's General Practitioners Committee firmly believes that, because APMS contractors provide NHS services to NHS patients, these providers should be subject to the same processes, checks and balances as other primary care providers. This is critical in ensuring that a level playing field exists between the various types of provider of NHS primary medical services.

  I have previously written to Lord Falconer at the Department for Constitutional Affairs explaining this inconsistency but it has so far proven difficult to implement any change which might rectify this inequality. We believe that Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 can be used to designate, as a public authority, an APMS body as it "provides services under contract to a public authority whose provision is a function of that authority".

  Our aim is to ensure that there is equity of access to information for the NHS patient, that quality of care and value for money are upheld across all primary care providers and that public probity is fair across all providers.

  For the reasons described, and given the similarity to the position regarding ISTCs (as outlined in paragraph 10.1 of the BMA's evidence to the Health Committee), we very much hope that the Committee will consider this matter in your deliberations.

  We would be very happy to discuss this further with you.

Dr Hamish Meldrum

Chairman, General Practitioners Committee, BMA

17 May 2006





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 25 July 2006