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
|