|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health where each burns unit in England is located; and how many (a) adults and (b) children with each category of burn each unit treated in each of the last three years. 
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide patients receiving treatment for cancers with (a) dental and (b) eye care fee exemptions; and if he will make a statement. 
Patients do not have to pay for NHS dental treatment if they receive treatment from a hospital dentist as an in-patient or attend as a hospital dental service outpatient, although they may have to pay for any dentures or bridges supplied. Children, pregnant and nursing mothers, adults on certain income-related benefits, and adults who qualify for full assistance under the NHS low income scheme may also receive free treatment if attending an NHS primary care dentist.
No NHS charges apply to patients attending a hospital eye department for the investigation or management of an eye condition. In addition, free NHS sight tests are available from primary care optometrists to a wide range of patients. These include children, people aged 60 and over, people with glaucoma or diabetes or who are at risk of glaucoma, people registered as sight-impaired or blind or who need complex lenses, and adults on certain income-related benefits or who qualify for full assistance under the NHS low income scheme. Private sight tests are widely available for other adults not eligible for an NHS sight test.
Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate has been made of the number of cardiovascular screening checks undertaken by each primary care trust since 1 April 2009; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Government's response to the royal commission on long term care, Cm 4818-II, page 8, in which years the Government's investment would fund the cost of the Royal Commission's recommendation; what research his Department has commissioned to ascertain how much money goes to supporting older people in residential homes; and what recent estimates he has made of the average annual cost to his Department of supporting older people in residential care. 
Phil Hope: The Government accepted each of the royal commission on long term care's recommendations except the recommendation to provide free personal care. Making personal care free for everyone carries a very substantial cost: the estimated cost is some £1.5 billion in 2003-04 rising to £2.65 billion in 2010-11.
The NHS Information Centre for health and social care publishes annually data on councils' expenditure on residential care for older people. The latest data are £4,740 million gross or £3,340 million net of user charges for 2007-08.
The Department commissioned the Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU) at the London School of Economics to make projections of expenditure on long-term care for older people in England. In a joint study with the Universities of Essex and Birmingham, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, they estimated that the introduction of free personal care could cost between £1.3 billion and £1.8 billion or more in 2002-PSSRU Research Summary 40, available at:
Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the median quality rating for (a) local authority provision, (b) voluntary provision, (c) private provision and (d) NHS provision of residential care home placements for adults aged under 65 years with learning disabilities in each (i) region and (ii) local authority area was in each of the last five years. 
Phil Hope: The quality or "star" rating system for social care providers was introduced by the then regulator of social care, the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) in May 2008. For this reason, the information requested is not available for each of the last five years.
Information on average quality ratings of care homes for younger adults with provision for people with learning disabilities, as at 8 August 2008 and 28 July 2009, has been provided by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), which took over the responsibilities of CSCI on 1 April 2009. This information has been placed in the Library.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to enable carers to (a) attend general practitioner consultations with those for who they care and (b) speak to general practitioners on behalf of such persons. 
Phil Hope: The Government have no current plans to change the arrangements for carers attending general practitioner (GP) consultations with, or speaking to GPs on behalf of, those for whom they care.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 enshrines in statute a presumption that every adult has the capacity to make his or her own decisions. It is for individuals with capacity, who have carers, to decide whether they want their carer to attend a GP consultation or to speak to a GP on their behalf.
Where a person does not have capacity to make such a decision, the Mental Capacity Act will come into effect. Those caring for the person may need to attend the GP consultation and/or speak to the GP on behalf of the person lacking capacity. Where they do so, the GP has no new obligation to share confidential information with the carer so will need to exercise his or her judgment as to what information they need to share if any about the health care needs of the person they are caring for.
Phil Hope: Through the national awareness and early diagnosis initiative, we are making the public and health care professionals more aware of the signs and symptoms of cancer, including cervical cancer and encouraging those who may have symptoms to seek advice earlier. We have allocated £5 million to the national health service to support cancer networks and primary care trusts in implementing services that will improve awareness of cancers and promote early diagnosis.
A national audit in primary care of all patients diagnosed with cancer is being undertaken in collaboration with the Royal College of Practitioners and the National Patient Safety Agency. Findings from the audit will be used to make decisions about how best to provide more support to general practitioners and other primary care professionals to ensure early diagnosis of cancer.
We have set up a working group to produce a new guideline to assist general practitioners in the management of young women who present in primary care with gynaecological symptoms. The aim is to issue the guideline before the end of the year.
We are also preparing key messages on cervical cancer for members of the public. The first draft is currently being reviewed by an expert group of stakeholders, and our plans are to launch these before the end of the year. These will go on to NHS Choices and stakeholder websites, and stakeholders will be encouraged to use them in a variety of ways to raise awareness.
The independent Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening (ACCS) at its formal review in May agreed unanimously that there should be no change in the current policy in England of starting cervical screening at 25 years. However, the cervical screening age range will be a standing item on the agenda of meetings of the ACCS, which reviews all new research to assess its significance to the cervical screening programme.
NHS cancer screening programmes maintain an on-line database of literature relating to cervical screening, and publish 'Cervical Screening: Literature Update' twice a year. If further evidence is published that warrants another formal review of the screening age range, this will be done.
David Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a study in England with equivalent terms of reference to the Get Well UK pilot study of use of complementary and alternative medicine carried out with Government funding in Northern Ireland in 2007-08; what assessment he has made of the cost effectiveness of allowing GPs to refer patients to complementary and alternative health practitioners; and if he will make a statement. 
Gillian Merron: The Department is currently considering the findings of the complementary and alternative medicine pilot study which took place in Northern Ireland. It is for local practitioners to decide whether to refer patients for specific therapies. One factor that they will wish to take account of is clinical and cost-effectiveness. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is responsible for assessing clinical and cost-effectiveness and can look at this in relation to specific complementary and alternative therapies, which have an evidence base, in the context of specific clinical guidelines.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Government's response to the royal commission on long-term care, Cm 4818-II, page 10, whether approval was given to a national survey to monitor trends in health expectancy. 
Phil Hope: The English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) began in March 2002, funded jointly by Her Majesty's Government and the United States National Institute of Ageing. The Government hope shortly to finalise arrangements to extend the survey for a further five years. The ELSA data can be used to estimate health expectancy in England at older ages.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) regularly produce and publish national estimates of health expectancy at birth and at age 65, using data from the General Household Survey. The most recent estimates are published in Health Statistics Quarterly), winter 2008 (p77), available on the ONS website:
Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what measures the £26.8 million allocated for the improvement for young people's access to contraception in February 2008 has been spent; and if he will make a statement. 
Gillian Merron: A total of £26.8 million has been allocated this year to strategic health authorities (SHAs) and primary care trusts (PCTs) to improve women's knowledge of, and access to, the full range of contraception, to help reduce the number of teenage pregnancies and abortions.
It is for SHAs and PCTs to determine how to use this funding most effectively to meet the needs of their local populations. However, officials are working with SHAs to provide advice and spread good practice. Priority areas include encouraging innovation and providing sustainable services to ensure equitable access to all methods of contraception including long acting reversible (LARC) methods. Guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence highlighted that the national health service could save around £100 million through reducing unintended pregnancies if women switched to LARC.
Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent on the dental access programme in the latest period for which figures are available; and how many staff the programme employs. 
Phil Hope: In 2008-09, the Department spent an estimated £125,000 on commissioning specialist consultancy to support the new dental access programme. Precise costs and headcount figures are not available because some of the consultants supported a range of activities in which the dental access programme was only one element. Input from departmental staff to support the programme has been provided from within existing departmental resources at no additional cost to the Department.
The dental access programme is providing on-going support to strategic health authorities and primary care trusts to help them improve access to NHS dental services and make the most effective use of the extra national health service funding, now totalling more than £2.25 billion, made available for primary dental care services. Information on expenditure on the dental access programme in 2009-10 will be available after the year end.
Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of implementing the six medium-term actions referred to in chapter 7 of the independent review of NHS dental services in England; 
(2) with reference to page 88 of Chapter 7 of the independent review of NHS dental services in England, what recent estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of implementing the four longer-term aims identified by the Review; 
(3) with reference to page 84 of chapter 7 of the Independent Review of NHS dental services in England, whether he has estimated the cost of implementing the seven immediate priorities identified by the Review. 
Phil Hope: Work has begun to estimate these costs. Funding has been identified for the implementation of the seven immediate priorities and to determine the costs of the medium and longer term priorities.
Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence on standards of dental services in the last 12 months. 
Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions (a) he, (b) his predecessor, (c) other Ministers in his Department and (d) Departmental officials met Professor Jimmy Steele and the dental review team between the dates of the (i) announcement and (ii) publication of the independent review of NHS dental services in England. 
Ann Keen: As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings. Professor Steele met a wide range of stakeholders as part of his independent review and these are listed in an annex to his review. This has been placed in the Library and is also available on the Department's website at:
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|