| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
14 Dec 2009 : Column 763W—continued
Phil Hope:
This is a working assumption. It relates to older people whose needs are not assessed as critical
under Fair Access to Care Services (FACS) while receiving informal care, but would become FACS critical if they ceased to receive informal care. Comments on its validity are welcomed as part of the consultation on regulations and guidance, "Personal Care at Home: a consultation for proposals on regulation and guidance", a copy of which has already been placed in the Library.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to paragraph 4.5 of the Impact Assessment for the Personal Care at Home Bill, what estimate he has made of the number of people who constitute the significant number whose status will change through reablement; from what source the data underlying that estimate were derived; and what assumptions have been made in making the estimate. [304841]
Phil Hope: Studies by the Care Services Efficiency Delivery programme on reablement domiciliary care services have shown that up to 50 per cent. of older people who were offered a short term package of reablement did not require any further support at the end of their treatment(1). However, as there are uncertainties about the long-term impact of reablement on the need for care, we cannot make an accurate forecast at this current time. That is why the impact assessment does not take into account the benefits of reablement, even though these are likely to be substantial.
(1)( ) Source:
Department of Health, 2009: Use of Resources in Adult Social Care: a guide for local authorities.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to paragraph 5.25 of the Impact Assessment for the Personal Care at Home Bill, what the two supply-side failures referred to are. [304856]
Ann Keen: The supply-side failures referred to in paragraph 5.25 are the under-provision of insurance coverage and higher prices for those who do take out insurance. Insurance companies wishing to offer insurance for personal care will make an assessment of the likelihood that people will require such services and offer a product at a price based on the average probability of need.
People who view themselves as being at a low risk of needing personal care will not be attracted by an insurance product at an average price and would only buy one at a low price. Those who see themselves as high risk will see an insurance product offered at a price based on the average probability as good value for money and are likely to purchase it.
As a result, insurance companies are aware that an average priced policy will adversely select high-risk customers and so do not offer it. They may offer products at a higher price to reflect the higher risk of customers they do attract. In an extreme case, this could result in complete market collapse as the remaining customers respond to higher prices by deciding not to purchase insurance. In response, insurance companies raise prices further and eventually there are no purchasers left.
In addition, insurance companies and individuals may make a different assessment of the risk of a person needing personal care, owing to their having less information about a person's risk than the individual themselves.
Insurance companies may respond to the problem by attempting to gather information about customers to set individually tailored prices to their products. Gathering information is costly and insurance companies pass this on through higher premiums. This can be compounded if the pool of customers taking insurance becomes smaller as insurance companies have to spread their fixed costs over a small number of people, further raising the price that customers have to pay.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the change in the number of assessments conducted by local authorities as a result of enactment of the proposals set out in the Personal Care at Home Bill; what estimate he has made of the effect of that change on costs; and whether local authority funding would be adjusted accordingly. [304943]
Phil Hope: The costs associated with increasing numbers of assessments have been included in the administrative component of Table 2 in the impact assessment. In the absence of firm data on this, we have assumed that the average cost of an assessment is £200 and that 135,000 extra individuals will be assessed per year, giving an overall cost estimate of £27 million per year, as shown in Table 2 of the impact assessment. This has been included in the estimate overall annual costs of £670 million per year in 2011-12 prices.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to paragraph 5.25 of the impact assessment for the Personal Care at Home Bill, what assessment he has made of the extent to which people believe that the state will be the insurer of last resort. [305696]
Phil Hope: Paragraph 5.25 of the impact assessment discusses the lack of a private insurance market for personal care services and the reasons why this may be the case. One of the reasons for this may be that individuals believe that the welfare state acts as a safety net for them and so they do not need to make provision for themselves. The Government have not attempted to quantify this specifically.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to paragraph 5.27 of the impact assessment for the Personal Care at Home Bill, how many times impact assessments conducted by his Department have cited websites. [305756]
Phil Hope: The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what (a) factors he took into account and (b) research his Department undertook in determining the scope of his legislative proposals relating to personal care. [305975]
Phil Hope: The factors taken into account are set out in the impact assessment, which was published with the current consultation document, "Personal Care at Home: a consultation on proposals for regulations and guidance". Both documents are available on the Department's website at:
Copies have already been placed in the Library.
As set out in the impact assessment, the research undertaken in the English Longitudinal Study of Aging identifies the potential number of people living at home who may qualify for free personal care.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to paragraph 6.2 of the impact assessment for the Personal Care at Home Bill, for what reason the distributional effect of providing insurance cover is included in the impact assessment. [305978]
Phil Hope: The impact assessment discusses a range of benefits of the proposals. One benefit is the distributional effect of providing free personal care to those in highest need, the beneficiaries of which are a sub-section of the population. A second benefit is the extension of Government-provided insurance to cover free personal care to those in highest need. The population as a whole derives a benefit from the extension as people know with certainty they will receive free personal care if they find themselves in need, as set out in the proposal.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has made an estimate of the average volume of carbon dioxide emissions arising from reablement schemes as set out in the Personal Care at Home Bill. [305979]
Phil Hope: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 9 December 2009, Official Report, column 497W.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to paragraph 6.3 of the impact assessment for the Personal Care at Home Bill, how many impact assessments conducted by his Department since 1997 have included mitigation of the general reluctance to pay taxes. [305996]
Phil Hope: The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to paragraph 7.5 of the impact assessment for the Personal Care at Home Bill, what estimate he has made of the differences in levels of informal care provided by different care settings. [306020]
Phil Hope: Paragraph 7.5 of the impact assessment sets out current thinking. An equality impact assessment screening has been undertaken and published with the consultation document, "Personal care at home: a consultation on proposals for regulations and guidance". Both documents are available on the Department's website at:
Copies have already been placed in the Library.
A full equality impact assessment will be undertaken prior to the implementation of the policy.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to the impact assessment for the Personal Care at Home Bill, if he will publish in full modelling commissioned by his Department from the Personal Social Services Research Unit. [306480]
Phil Hope: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 10 December 2009, Official Report, column 552W, on social services.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent revisions have been made to the financial assumptions underpinning the Government's financial modelling for a National Care Service as a result of the pledge that there will be no cash losers amongst existing disability benefit recipients. [307198]
Phil Hope: None. As we said in the Green Paper "Shaping the future of care and support together", if we reform disability benefits, anyone receiving an affected benefit at the time of reform would continue to receive the equivalent level of support and protection.
Our working assumptions in the financial modelling have consistently been that nobody will experience a cash loss as a result of the reforms.
South East Coast Strategic Health Authority
Mr. Blunt:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the capitation cost of the chairman of the South East Coast strategic health authority was in the last year for which figures are available; and how
many days she spent working for the authority in that year. [304337]
Gillian Merron: The chair of the South East Coast strategic health authority (SHA) was appointed from 1 May 2009 with remuneration at the national rate set by the Government of £46,131 for 2009-10. The chair committed to working at least three days a week for the SHA.
South East Coast Strategic Health Authority: Expenditure
Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the (a) budgeted and (b) outturn expenditure of the NHS South East Coast health authority was in each of the last four years. [306768]
Gillian Merron: The following table shows the revenue resource limit and net operating costs for the South East Coast strategic health authority (SHA). The revenue resource limit represents the total amount of revenue expenditure that an SHA can incur during the financial year. Net operating costs represent the total net revenue expenditure actually incurred by the SHA during the financial year. For 2005-06, we have provided data for the two predecessor SHAs: Kent and Medway SHA and Surrey and Sussex SHA.
| SHA revenue resource limit and net operating costs | |||
| SHA name | Revenue resource limit (£000) | Net operating costs (£000) | |
| Note: South East Coast SHA was created on 1 July 2006 from the merger of Surrey and Sussex SHA and Kent and Medway SHA. Source: SHA Audited Summarisation Schedules 2005-06 to 2008-09. | |||
South East Coast Strategic Health Authority: Pay
Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the salary of the chief executive of the NHS South East Coast health authority is. [306736]
Gillian Merron: Information about the remuneration of the chief executive of the South East Coast strategic health authority (SHA) is available in the SHA's "Annual Report 2008-09", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.
Surgery: Technology
Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he plans to refer the CyberKnife robotic radiosurgery system to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence for evaluation. [305392]
Mr. Mike O'Brien: We have no such plans. Stakeholders can submit topic suggestions for National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance through the NICE website at:
We understand that the National Radiotherapy Implementation Group is considering whether it would be helpful to develop guidance for the national health service on the use of stereotactic radiotherapy more generally.
Swine Flu: Vaccination
Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to the answer of 5 November 2009, Official Report, column 1183W, on swine flu: vaccination, what criteria his Department provided to Morianto in respect of the distribution of the swine flu vaccine. [307199]
Gillian Merron: The initial distribution of vaccine was targeted at acute and other national health service trusts for health care workers' vaccination. A box of GlaxoSmithKline vaccine was then distributed to general practitioner (GP) surgeries across the country so that the vaccination of clinical risk groups could start. Subsequently, primary care trusts have been able to order vaccine for GP surgeries and NHS organisations, based on the population they are responsible for.
Therapy: Domestic Violence
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to the Home Department's "Together we can end violence against women and girls" strategy, how much his Department plans to spend on the pilot site of the Multisystemic Therapy Programme at the Brandon Centre in North London in (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11 and (c) each of the subsequent three years; and from what budget such expenditure will be drawn. [305309]
Ann Keen: The Department is co-funding the Multisystemic Therapy Programme for Problem Sexual Behaviour at the Brandon Centre for a three-year period from 2009-10 to 2011-12. This funding amounts to £250,000 in 2009-10 and £300,000 in both 2010-11 and 2011-12. There is currently no commitment to funding from the Department after this date.
This commitment to develop pilot sites of Multisystemic Therapy was made originally in the 2007 Social Exclusion Action Plan, Action 20, and is drawn from the Department's Health Inequalities and Partnerships Directorate budget, with additional funding provided by the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Youth Justice Board.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |