|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Gordon Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent discussions he has had with the mobile phone industry on developing increased protection for users from radiation from prolonged mobile phone use; 
Dawn Primarolo: No discussions have taken place with the mobile phone industry or our European counterparts on such matters. Mobile phones comply with the international guidelines set out in the European Council Recommendation EC/519/1999.
Dawn Primarolo: The Department receives advice from the Health Protection Agency (HPA) on the health effects of electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation exposure such as that emitted by mobile phones. The HPAs independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation published a comprehensive detailed review of mobile-phone related studies in Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (Documents of the NRPB, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2003). This report and HPA advice are available on its website at www.hpa.org.uk/radiation. More recently a number of individual studies have been published and will be taken into account in the next detailed review. It may be appropriate to undertake such a review when the results of the large international INTERPHONE study are known.
The INTERPHONE study is being co-ordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a part of the World Health Organization located in Lyon, France. IARC published an update on 25 September 2007, in which it indicated the study is nearing completion and summarised the results from scientific papers that have already been published by some of the national components. The update is available at:
The programme management committee of the UKs Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR) published a report on 12 September 2007. The MTHR report described the work it has supported in the United Kingdom and placed it in context with work going on in other parts of the world. The committees report is available at:
Ann Keen: The Department would like to thank Sir John Tooke and his review group for investing so much time and expertise in providing recommendations for the future of medical training for 2009 and beyond. We will consider Sir Johns findings carefully.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 25 April 2007, Official Report, column 1200W, on NHS Treatment Centres, whether the review of NHS walk-in centre funding arrangements is complete; and when he plans to publish the review report. 
Mr. Bradshaw: An initial review of NHS walk-in centres and their funding arrangements has been undertaken. Further work is now taking place as part of the package of measures announced in the interim report of the national health service next stage review, including the development of a strategy for primary and community care. The conclusions of this work will be published in due course.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many providers of clinical decision support software supply products to the NHS there are; which providers (a) supplied such software to the NHS in June 2005 and (b) supply software now; what steps he is taking to rationalise the number of software programmes used following the recommendation in paragraph 4.8 of Taking Healthcare to the Patient: Transforming NHS Ambulance Services, published on 30 June 2005; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Bradshaw: The Department does not centrally hold information on providers of software used by all ambulance trusts in June 2005. Ambulance services across England now use only one call prioritisation system for 999 call handling, the internationally recognised Advanced Medical Priority Dispatch System, with the exception of north-east ambulance service who are piloting NHS Pathways, and the Royal Berkshire area of south central ambulance service, who are using a computerised criteria based despatch system.
|National Institute for Health Research budget( 1)||2008-09||2009-10||2010-11|
|( 1) Includes medical and dental research training.|
Mr. Ivan Lewis: National health service bodies are not required to report their planned or actual spending on interpretation and translation services to the Department. When planning such services, NHS bodies should take due account of their legal duties, the composition of the communities they serve, and the needs and circumstances of their patients, service users and local populations.
The September 2006 census showed there were 1,982 modern matrons in post, an increase of 376 or 23.4 per cent. since 2005. Numbers of community matrons were recorded for the first time in 2005. The September 2006 census showed there were 366 community matrons in post, an increase of 99 or 37.1 per cent. on 2005.
We are committed to increasing the number of community matrons and local development plans strongly suggest this is happening. Anecdotal evidence suggests there are more community matrons in post than the census suggests.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: In England, the Government have accepted each of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on long-term care except the recommendation that personal care should be provided free at the point of delivery to all in all settings. We estimate that the cost of implementing free personal care in England would be around £1.5 billion at 2003-04 prices.
The Personal Social Services Research Unit has recently published Paying for Long-Term Care for Older People in the UK: Modelling the Costs and Distributional Effects of a Range of Options, which models a range of options for funding long-term care, including making personal care free to all in all settings.
The report gives estimated public expenditure costs at 2002 prices of between £1.35 billion and £1.8 billion, depending on the way in which free personal care is
implemented. This covers residential and home care for older people. It covers the whole of the United Kingdom. The England equivalent range would be about £1.2 billion to £1.6 billion. These estimates take account of limited offsetting savings of disability benefits.
Ben Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the cost was of a medicines use review per patient in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what assessment he has made of the benefits to patients of such reviews; 
Dawn Primarolo: Medicines use reviews (MUR) aim to improve patients knowledge and use of the medicines prescribed for them, through a specific consultation between an accredited pharmacist and the patient. They may be triggered by concerns over patient concordance or where the patient is receiving medicines regularly and the pharmacist thinks a patient may benefit from an MUR. MURs can be conducted with patients on multiple medicines and those with long-term conditions, every 12 months. Primary care trusts (PCTs) can identify patient groups that would particularly benefit from such a review. Routine MURs, initiated by the pharmacist, must only be provided for patients who have been using the pharmacy for the dispensing of prescriptions for at least the previous three months.
In 2006-07, accredited pharmacies in the area covered by Wirral Primary Care Trust were paid
£100,185 for providing 4,091 MURs. The Prescription Pricing Division (PPD) of the NHS Business Services Authority records the number of claims contractors make for MURs they have provided. The data for Wirral PCT were sourced from the PPD Information System and do not include adjustments for overpayments or the late submission of claims.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of (a) HIV, (b) chlamydia, (c) gonorrhoea, (d) syphilis, (e) genital warts and (f) genital herpes there were in England in each year since 1997. 
|Individuals newly diagnosed with HIV in England by year of diagnosis (1997-2006)cumulative data to the end of June 2007|
|(1) Numbers will rise as further reports are received, particularly for recent years.|
Table will include some records of the same individuals which are unmatchable because of differences in information supplied.
Health Protection Agency, new HIV diagnoses
|New sexually transmitted infection diagnoses, England: 1997-2006|
|Uncomplicated chlamydial infection||Uncomplicated gonorrhoea||Primary and secondary infectious syphilis||Anogenital wartsfirst attack||Anogenital herpes simplexfirst attack|
The data available from the KC60 statutory returns are for diagnoses made in genito-urinary clinics (GUM) only. Diagnoses made in other clinical settings, such as General Practice, are not recorded in the KC60 dataset.
Health Protection Agency, KC60 returns
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|