|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people in England likely to be carrying infective prions that cause vCJD; whether an assessment has been made of whether any such people are likely to be blood donors; and if he will make a statement. 
Gillian Merron: A study of stored tissue samples found abnormal prion protein in three appendices out of 12,674 samples. This suggests a prevalence of about 1 in 4,000, though with very wide confidence interval of between 1 in 1,400 and 1 in 20,000. On the expert advice of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, this single study is given considerable weight, though a larger subsequent study suggests a lower range of estimates. Not all of the individuals in the first study would be of an age eligible to donate blood, nor is it clear whether presence of abnormal prion protein in appendix or tonsil indicates that the blood of such a donor would transmit variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD). So the prevalence of infective donors remains unknown, and all precautionary measures are assessed in the context of that fundamental uncertainty.
The Department commissioned and uses a study by DNV Consulting (London) which assessed the magnitude of the risk from infection with vCJD in blood and blood products. This was published in 2003 and is available at:
Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent estimate he has made of the (a) potential annual rental and (b) total book value of the (i) empty and (ii) occupied residential properties owned by his Department. 
Phil Hope: The Department currently owns 10 individual residential properties (nine being in one block of which one is occupied). No recent estimate has been made of the potential annual rental value of the block of nine as it is currently in the process of being sold. The estimated annual rental value of the remaining occupied property is £10,800. The current book value of the block of nine is £700,000 and of the individual property £250,000.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health for how many non-departmental public bodies his Department is responsible.  [Official Report, 3 March 2010, Vol. 506, c. 13-14MC.]
The Department has one agency, 10 executive non-departmental public bodies, nine strategic health authorities and 30 advisory non-departmental public bodies. Further detailed information is contained in the "Department of Health's Public Bodies 2009", a copy
of which has been placed in the Library. This document is also available on the Department's website:
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of (a) Anguillan nationals treated by the NHS and (b) UK nationals treated in Anguilla under reciprocal healthcare obligations in the last 12 months; and what the estimated cost was in each case. 
Gillian Merron: In the last 12 months, there have been no patient referrals from Anguilla to the United Kingdom, incurring no cost to the national health service. The agreement does not provide for referrals from the United Kingdom to Anguilla. Under the agreement, residents of Anguilla and the United Kingdom can access emergency state healthcare in each country, however no reimbursements are sought from either country for treatment provided, and so the data relating to this are not collected centrally.
Colin Challen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the net financial effect on the NHS of the withdrawal of reciprocal health arrangements with the Isle of Man. 
Gillian Merron: It is essential that all bilateral health care agreements represent value for money to the United Kingdom taxpayer. The net financial effect of withdrawing from the bilateral health care agreement with the Isle of Man will be a £2.82 million saving for the national health service.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 20 January 2010, Official Report, columns 366-7W, on health services: Isle of Man, what types of personal data are contained in the dataset; and if he will publish a version of the dataset with personal data removed. 
Gillian Merron: The dataset, originally provided by the Isle of Man Government, contains personal addresses and medical details over a large number of pages. We are therefore not able to publish this information in a redacted form given the disproportionate cost.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the cost to the NHS of treating non-UK residents for cardiovascular disease was in (a) the latest period for which figures are available and (b) each of the last five years; 
Gillian Merron: It is not possible to provide the information requested. Successive governments have not required the national health service to provide statistics on the number of non-United Kingdom residents treated or charged under the provisions of the NHS (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989, as amended, nor costs involved.
Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made as part of its consultation on NHS car parking of the annual revenue raised by NHS hospital trusts from parking charges; what estimate it has made of the cost to NHS hospital trusts of providing free car parking; what consideration he is giving to the merits of providing funding to NHS hospital trusts to offset the revenue foregone through the introduction of free car parking; and over what period he expects any policy on introducing free car parking to be implemented. 
Mr. Mike O'Brien: The consultation exercise on car parking for patients and their families at national health service hospitals estimates that current revenue from NHS patients and visitors is in the range from £140 million to £180 million per annum. Estimated costs for each option can be found in the consultation document and impact assessment, which have been placed in the Library and are available on the Department's website at:
Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has received of (a) the safety of and (b) serious adverse reactions to the human papillomavirus vaccine; and if he will make a statement. 
Gillian Merron: As of 27 January 2010, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) had received 3,402 suspected adverse reaction (ADR) reports for both human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines (Cervarix and Gardasil) including 657 serious suspected ADR reports. The MHRA publishes regular weekly summaries of UK safety data on Cervarix, the vaccine in routine use in the United Kingdom, on its website at:
MHRA takes into consideration European and worldwide safety data when assessing the safety of HPV vaccine in the UK. To date, the vast majority of suspected adverse reactions reported to MHRA in association with Cervarix HPV vaccine have related either to the signs and symptoms of recognised side effects listed in the product information or were due to the injection process and not the vaccine itself. For the isolated cases of other medical conditions reported, the available evidence does not suggest that the vaccine caused the condition
and these may have been coincidental events. More than 3.5 million doses of Cervarix vaccine have been given across the UK since September 2008. The Government's independent expert advisory committee, the Commission on Human Medicines, has advised that the balance of risks and benefits of Cervarix remains positive. It is anticipated that HPV vaccine will eventually save up to 400 lives a year. As with any vaccine, the MHRA will continue to closely monitor the safety of Cervarix vaccine.
The latest vaccine safety summary reports published by the MHRA have been placed in the Library. These are entitled: 'Suspected Adverse Reaction Analysis Cervarix Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine' and 'Suspected Adverse Reaction Analysis Cervarix Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (brand unspecified)'.
Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people have made use of NHS counselling services as part of the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme in each of the last two years; 
Phil Hope: In the first year of the programme, October 2008 to October 2009, 102,693 people accessed Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services. This is in line with the plans to see 900,000 people in the first three years of the programme. In year two, we have launched a further 111 sites and by the end of 2010-11 all 152 primary care trusts (PCTs) will have an IAPT service. Information on the number of people accessing psychological therapy services was not collected centrally prior to the IAPT programme.
We monitor key performance indicators on a quarterly basis but only centrally collect data on the ethnicity of those accessing services as part of the annual IAPT Data Review. This review is due to report in the coming weeks and we expect to publish the results in March 2010.
The £173 million investment in psychological therapy services has focused on establishing services that are in line with National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines, thus offering evidence based treatments. Initially this has meant cognitive behavioural therapy has been the focus of the IAPT training programme and therefore the main offer from IAPT services. The recent update of the NICE guidelines for the treatment of depression means that a wider range of therapies, including therapy, couples therapy, interpersonal therapy, counselling, collaborative care and brief dynamic therapy, will soon also be available through IAPT services as they mature.
The funding for IAPT services has, to date, been through centrally allocated funds. From April 2010, the majority of the central investment will be allocated to all PCTs in their baseline allocation, while new services may receive additional centrally allocated funds as they come on stream in 2010-11. From the outset of the programme it was always envisaged that funding for IAPT services would move to PCTs at the earliest opportunity. The collection and publication of benchmarking data, the monitoring of regional delivery plans and the well established national health service performance framework mean that the ongoing ring-fencing of NHS money is not appropriate.
The economic downturn has highlighted the need to ensure people have access to psychological therapies and in March 2009 a £13 million package of measures was introduced to respond to the impact the economic downturn may have on people's mental health. Measures introduced include: introducing employment support functions into all IAPT services, the establishment of NHS Stressline, improving the information online about mental well-being and services, establishing IAPT services more quickly and training those working in primary care to better understand and address people's emotional well-being needs.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to the answer of 26 November 2009, Official Report, column 354W, whether the £11 million allocated to primary care trusts for the provision
of annual health checks to individuals with learning disabilities is ring-fenced. 
Phil Hope: The sums paid to practices under the Learning Disabilities Health Check Scheme Directed Enhanced Service is not ring-fenced, rather primary care trusts (PCTs) will have to meet these costs from within their overall allocations, which increased by 5.5 per cent. on average in 2009-10, as set out in the NHS Operating Framework for that year.
Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination rate was for those aged under 18 (a) nationally, (b) in each region and (c) in each primary care trust in London in each of the last five years. 
Gillian Merron: The uptake rate of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and other vaccines is monitored through the COVER (coverage of vaccination evaluated rapidly) collection made by the Health Protection Agency. COVER reports rates of MMR vaccination at the age of two years (for one dose of MMR) and at five years (for one and two doses of MMR). The rate of MMR uptake is not collected after the age of five.
|Percentage immunised with (1 dose) of MMR by age :||Percentage immunised with 1 st and 2 nd dose of MMR by age :||Percentage immunised with (1 dose) of MMR by age :||Percentage immunised with 1 st and 2 nd dose of MMR by age :||Percentage immunised with (1 dose) of MMR by age :||Percentage immunised with 1 st and 2 nd dose of MMR by age :|
|2 yrs||5 yrs||5 yrs||2 yrs||5 yrs||5 yrs||2 yrs||5 yrs||5 yrs|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|