|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
In summer 2006, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) statisticians created an anonymised statistical dataset for research into the staff market forces factor (MFF) used in NHS resource allocation. The dataset was created by linking selected variables supplied by NHS Information Centre for health and social care from the 2003 NHS Medical and Dental Workforce Census with three income variables derived from HMRC records: total employment income, total self-employment income and the sum of these two variables. Any variables used to link the data were removed prior to access by the academic researcher contracted by Department. This deliberately partial data set contained only the information required by the researcher to carry out the statistical (regression) analysis used in the review of the MFF.
The researcher had access to only this anonymised, statistical dataset. The statistical analyses were undertaken on HMRC premises. Having signed appropriate confidentiality undertakings, the researcher was allowed supervised access to the dataset in an isolated environment with no connection to either HMRC networks and administrative data systems or to external sites via internet or e-mail. HMRC reviewed all statistical output compiled by the researcher and released only aggregate non-disclosive summaries. No outputs based on single or small number of records were released. The smallest sample count in the published report was 30. This is well within the guidelines for dissemination of statistics in National Statistics protocols. The researcher was not allowed to return to the dataset once the agreed analysis had been completed.
As will be clear from the table, it was impossible to link records in the statistical dataset with any data relating to an identifiable individual, so no permission was sought from NHS consultants for this research to take place.
The total cost of the contract for research into the staff MFF was £75,000. The analysis of private sector earnings of NHS consultants was a relatively small, but influential part of the review of the MFF. The final research report on the review of the staff MFF will be made available on the Department of Health website alongside the PCT revenue allocations, to be announced at the time of the Operating Framework for the NHS later this year.
The correspondence files relating to securing access to the tax return data base do not exist, since no one was given access to a data base of tax returns. The process that was followed to give access to an anonymised data set is as described.
In the last 11 years, HMRC has conducted surveys into consultants earnings on behalf of the Department of Health for tax years 1998-99 to 2004-05 inclusive, using data from HMRC records. No outputs from this work have been provided to non-HM Revenue and Customs personnel in either pseudo-anonymised or non-anonymised form. HMRC released only anonymised outputs to the Department of Health or to the NHS Information Centre for health and Social care.
In addition, at the request of the Department for 2003-04 only, HMRC created an anonymised statistical dataset relating to consultants earnings. It contained only the pre-arranged data items for a sample of 24,407 cases that were necessary to enable researchers acting on behalf of the Department of Health to undertake statistical analysis. The researchers were allowed supervised access to the dataset on HMRC premises. HMRC reviewed the outputs from the statistical analysis to ensure that only non-disclosive summary and aggregate statistics were compiled and used in the report.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to paragraph 5.12 of the report to his Department on improving access to NHS medicines by Professor Mike Richards CBE, how his Department plans to encourage primary care trusts to work together to make proactive commissioning decisions. 
Mr. Bradshaw: On 4 November, the Secretary of State accepted this recommendation and the national health service chief executive wrote to all strategic health authority (SHA) chief executives to ask them to review, by April 2009, the way in which primary care trusts in their area collaborate to support effective decision-making on new drugs.
Mr. Bradshaw: We will publish in the new year a set of core principles to inform the way in which primary care trusts make decisions about funding new drugs, followed by detailed good practice guidance for the national health service.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what timetable he has set for implementing Recommendation 6 of improving access to medicines for NHS patients; whether he plans to publish the results of the work; and if he will make a statement. 
Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Statement of 4 November 2008, Official Report, columns 131-33, on NHS patients: access to medicines, which drugs he will refer back to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence for re-appraisal. 
Dawn Primarolo: We have no plans to refer any drugs or treatments back to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for reappraisal. NICE already has a system in place for periodically reviewing those appraisals it has published.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Statement of 4 November 2008, Official Report, columns 131-33, on NHS patients: access to medicines, what steps he expects the NHS trust to take with regard to the funding of any treatment needed as a result of complications in circumstances where it is not possible to identify whether complications have resulted from a patients private or NHS treatment. 
Mr. Bradshaw: The draft revised guidance published by the Department on 4 November is clear that, where patients pay for additional, private treatment, the national health service should not be expected to meet any predictable costs resulting from the private element of care. Copies of the guidance have already been placed in the Library.
However, in circumstances where it is not possible to identify whether complications have resulted from a patients private or NHS treatment, or in an emergency, patients should, of course, be entitled to NHS care.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time equivalent staff work at (a) the NHS Blood and Transplant Authority, (b)
NHS Professionals, (c) the Commission for Social Care Inspection, (d) the General Social Care Council, (e) the Healthcare Commission, (f) the Appointments Commission, (g) the Mental Health Act Commission, (h) the Social Care Institute for Excellence, (i) the Hepatitis Advisory Group, (j) the AIDS Expert Advisory Group and (k) the Healthcare Regulatory Council. 
|(1) Whole-time equivalent.|
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to paragraph 11 of his Departments equality impact assessment on NHS patients who wish to pay for additional private care, which private treatments currently unavailable will be made available on the NHS. 
Dawn Primarolo: The future use of specific interventions within the national health service will depend on a variety of factors, including recommendations made by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to paragraph 9.6 of his Departments consultation document on Guidance on NHS patients who wish to pay for additional private care, what his Departments definition is of unreasonable profit. 
Mr. Bradshaw: The draft revised guidance the Department published on 4 November sets out the clear principles that should be applied to every situation where a national health service patient chooses to purchase additional care privately.
The Department does not consider it sensible to try to define this at a national level and the Government do not set prices for private healthcare. Instead, the principle set out in the guidance sets a clear expectation to all NHS organisations that any charges they make in their capacity as providers of private care must be reasonable and justifiable. It is then for NHS organisations to apply this principle locally, in line with their particular local circumstances.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on whether patients will have to pay for the full cost of the NHS element if they wish to proceed with the private element in cases where it is impossible to separate a private element of a patients treatment from an NHS-provided element. 
Mr. Bradshaw: The draft revised guidance, published by the Department of Health on 4 November, sets out clearly the principles that should apply in circumstances where patients wish to purchase additional, private care. It says that:
As overriding rules, it is essential that:
the NHS should never subsidise private care with public money, which would breach core NHS principles; and
patients should never be charged for their NHS care, which would contravene the founding principles and legislation of the NHS."
in order to ensure that there is no risk of the NHS subsidising private care:
It should always be clear whether an individual procedure or treatment is privately funded or NHS funded.
Private and NHS care should be kept as clearly separate as possible.
Private care should be carried out at a different time and place. A different place would include the facilities of a private health care provider, or part of an NHS organisation which has been designated for private care, including amenity beds.
This guidance applies to additional private health care that patients receive over and above their NHS care. It does not permit a pick and mix approach where patients can pay to upgrade any individual elements of their NHS care.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Statement of 4 November 2008, Official Report, columns 131-33, on NHS patients: access to medicines, how many patients he expects will take up the right to purchase separate private care in each of the next three years. 
Mr. Bradshaw: The measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 4 November will improve access to drugs for national health service patients, reducing the number of patients likely to purchase additional care privately. The Department does not have sufficient data to estimate patient numbers reliably.
However, the Secretary of State accepted Professor Mike Richardss recommendation that the Department
should commission a national audit of demand for unfunded drugs. The Secretary of State has asked Professor Richards to lead this work.
Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered neonatal nurses he estimates will be required in neonatal intensive care units in (a) Wandsworth and (b) London in (i) 2009, (ii) 2010 and (iii) 2011. 
Ann Keen: It is for local national health service organisations to analyse their local work force needs and develop plans, in liaison with commissioners, providers and service users, to deliver high quality, safe services and take action to secure the appropriate staff and skills to deliver these services.
Ann Keen: Neonatal nurses are not currently identifiable within the NHS census data collected by the Information Centre for health and social care. The number of qualified paediatric nurses in the London strategic health authority area, Kingston Hospital NHS Trust, and St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust can be found in the following table.
|NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified paediatric nurses in the London strategic health authority area and each specified organisation as at 30 September 2007|
Data quality: Work force statistics are compiled from data sent by more than 300 NHS trusts and primary care trusts (PCTs) in England. The NHS Information Centre for health and social care liaises closely with these organisations to encourage submission of complete and valid data and seeks to minimise inaccuracies and the effect of missing and invalid data. Processing methods and procedures are continually being updated to improve data quality. Where this happens any impact on figures already published will be assessed but unless this is significant at national level they will not be changed. Where there is impact only at detailed or local level this will be footnoted in relevant analyses.
The NHS Information Centre for health and social care Non-Medical Workforce Census.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he holds on the number of children who have been estimated to be obese or seriously overweight in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and how many teenagers have been diagnosed with diabetes in each such year. 
Information on the percentage of children aged two to 15 who are overweight or obese in each of the last 10 years is available from the Health Survey for England 2006 Latest trends: Children trend
tables 2006 published on 31 January 2008. The information can be found on table 4. This publication has already been placed in the Library.
Further information on the percentage of children who are overweight or obese is also available for the year 2006-07 for those in school year reception (aged four to five) and year 6 (aged 10 to 11) from the National Child Measurement Programme (NCMP). This information is available in the National Child Measurement Programme: 2006/07 school year, headline results published on 21 February 2008. The prevalence of obese children can be found in table 1 (page 3). This publication has already been placed in the Library.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|