Health and Social Care Bill

Baroness Gould of Potternewton Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler]

I will obviously deal with that issue, because it is crucial. If the noble Lord would be as patient as I have been in waiting for the opportunity of this debate, then all will be revealed to him.

It is probably the black African population who are most affected by the current policy, yet it is here that the Government’s policy of prevention has been most concentrated. We need to remember that late diagnosis of HIV, leading to the late start of treatment, is one of the major causes of serious ill health and early death. Yet, here we are, pursuing a policy that deters treatment and testing, from which the only logical result can be that late diagnosis. If you want a monetary argument, you have to add the additional costs of treatment for that individual plus the cost of those who may be further infected. On the face of it, it is not a prudent financial policy.

Why do we therefore pursue such an apparently reactionary and foolish policy? Here I come to the noble Lord’s point. Only one argument has ever been put forward. It is that if the rule were to be lifted there would be a danger of “health tourism”. This is an argument based entirely on assertion. As far as I can see, there is no evidence whatever for it. My Select Committee looked at this point, as the noble Lord will know because he has read the committee’s report on this matter. The same rule is not applied in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—either as policy or in practice. Has there been an influx of those suffering with HIV to Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast? Of course not. My Select Committee could find absolutely no evidence in this respect. If there is such evidence, I invite the Minister to give it or any other evidence that she may have on health tourism, because, so far, it has never been put.

The crucial point against the law in England is that it is not enforced in any event. It is incapable of being enforced. The patients are usually destitute. A hospital gives the treatment. Then it pursues the charges. Then it finds out that the patient cannot pay and it writes off the whole amount. As one of our witnesses said, it is a constant circle of nonsense. That is the position that is being defended at present.

I have not yet heard any sensible defence of the present position. As a matter of principle, Parliament should not pass laws which cannot be enforced; and as a matter of practice, Parliament should not pass laws which add to the problems of public health and do not reduce them. If the Government are serious about their intent to put prevention first, this law should be repealed. I beg to move.

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

My Lords, I am very pleased to support the amendment. I was also very pleased to see that, in the response to the HIV Select Committee report, the Government are reviewing their current policy, which excludes some people from HIV treatment. The HIV Select Committee was absolutely right to say that it is wrong to charge anyone with HIV treatment and care.

For me, it is not only a question of health, it is a question of humanity. I find it incredible that this position survives. I have to say this with great regret, because I spent a long time trying to persuade my Government that something should be done about this, with little success. The argument was made very much in the way that my noble friend said about health tourism. I hope, although I am not clear from the words of the Minister in replying to the debate in December, whether that is still in their thinking. She said,

“we must avoid creating any incentive for people to come to the UK for the purpose of free HIV treatment”.—[Official Report, 1/12/11; col. 492.]

As my noble friend Lord Fowler said, there is no evidence to support the claims of HIV health tourism if the charging is ended. In 2008, the National Aids Trust produced a report on the myth of HIV tourism, demonstrating that such claims are wholly unfounded. Data from the Health Protection Agency show that the average time between a migrant arriving in the UK and an HIV diagnosis is almost five years. That is an awfully long time for someone coming on the basis of health tourism. For me, it is the absolute clincher as to why this is all such nonsense. Further, government reports have suggested that asylum seekers have no prior detailed knowledge of the UK's asylum policies, welfare benefits or entitlement to treatment. That would apply equally to HIV.

HIV charges, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said, are not applied in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. We would have seen some movement from London or anywhere in England to those nations if people wanted to access free treatment. If individuals do not move from London to Edinburgh to access free treatment, it is difficult to believe that they move from, say, Harare to London, for that reason. Another reason makes that claim somewhat ludicrous. A report published yesterday by the HPA shows that 5.9 per cent of TB patients are HIV-infected. TB treatment is free for those people; but the HIV treatment is charged. I do not know how one differentiates between those treatment costs, and, again, it just shows how stupid the position is.

In addition, since 2004, when the charges for HIV treatment were first implemented in England, there has been a 13-fold increase in access to anti-retroviral treatment in low and middle-income countries around the world, with sub-Saharan Africa seeing the greatest increase in the absolute numbers of people receiving treatment. ART coverage of all those who need it now stands at nearly 50 per cent in those regions and continues to increase. It is most unlikely that those able to purchase a flight to the UK will be unable to purchase ART in their own country. Having HIV does not in itself prevent removal from this country if a person is in breach of the Immigration Rules, as was established at the European Court of Human Rights in the case of N. Therefore, there is no reason for someone who knows they have HIV to migrate to the UK believing that their HIV-positive status will secure settled residence and ongoing access to treatment.

However, there is another criterion which, again, I had not appreciated until yesterday. A situation arises from the new Immigration Rules that have just come into force which further entrenches the way that HIV treatment charges deter African men and women in particular from finding out about their HIV status or going for treatment. Now, anyone with an unpaid NHS debt of over £1,000 will routinely have further immigration-related applications, whether to remain or for re-entry, refused. In the past, it was possible to encourage people coming forward for testing and treatment on the basis that it would have no impact on their immigration status. That is no longer possible as, if you are not entitled to free HIV treatment, your immigration status can be affected. As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said, these people are destitute and do not have the money. As a consequence of this change, they could now be removed from this country, which is something that never happened before.

There is also the whole question of costs. It seems to me that not removing charging continues to increase the cost to the NHS arising from HIV treatment charges. Ending charges for HIV treatment will actually save the NHS money by preventing new HIV infections and by identifying HIV early, when it can be effectively treated, so reducing the need for hospitalisation and other costly care when people with HIV become seriously ill. Reducing the level of undiagnosed HIV and increasing the proportion of people with HIV on effective ART will reduce the number of HIV transmissions occurring in the UK. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said that preventing one onward transmission of HIV saves between £280,000 and £360,000 in treatment costs over a lifetime. People who are diagnosed late or who do not access treatment become seriously ill and will often require expensive in-patient care—a week’s stay costing between £15,000 and £25,000, and there may be many repeat visits to hospital. Surely it is cheaper to provide no deterrents to early testing and treatment.

It is sound common sense to remove this costly and inhumane restriction from the NHS (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations. I hope that perhaps, not today but when the review is over, we will hear sound common sense from the Government.

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment, and I shall be very brief. I believe that it is high time to put an end to the singling out of HIV as the only infectious disease which is subject to treatment charges. I believe that exempting HIV from charges is necessary to save lives, to protect public health and to safeguard NHS resources. Ensuring that everybody who needs treatment receives it is the key point. Charges deter people from accessing treatment and from testing for HIV. Why is it that HIV is the only serious communicable disease for which treatment is not provided free of charge? It is inconsistent and confusing, and undermines efforts to prevent further infection. Removing the charges will prevent many premature deaths in the United Kingdom, and will reduce long-term costs and transmission of HIV. This is why I hope the Minister will look very kindly on this amendment.

Health: HIV/AIDS

Baroness Gould of Potternewton Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the rising incidence of other sexually transmitted diseases. I draw the House’s attention in particular to the large numbers of cases of chlamydia and herpes, where he is perfectly correct in saying that the statistics are rising. In other areas, the statistics are stabilising—but he is generally right in the point that he makes. The data show that in 2010 there was a 1 per cent decrease in all diagnoses, but within that there are areas on which we undoubtedly have to concentrate.

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister appreciates how important it is to have early testing. What efforts will the Government make to ensure that GPs and other primary care professionals routinely offer HIV testing to all new patients, particularly in high prevalence areas? More than that, is any action being taken to give the new GPs and other new professionals the confidence, skills and ability to be able to offer that test?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness with her experience makes a central point here. We absolutely agree that increasing the offer and uptake of HIV testing in a variety of healthcare settings is important to reduce undiagnosed HIV. We welcome the BHIVA professional guidelines in this area, which have been extremely helpful. The sooner a person with HIV is diagnosed, the sooner they can benefit from treatment and also make any behavioural changes to prevent transmission. It is those behavioural changes that count most strongly.

The department funded pilots to support the implementation of recommendations from the BHIVA, and those were extremely successful. In the coming days, we will consider carefully the report that is due to be published by the Health Protection Agency to see how we can take forward its findings in this area.

Public Health

Baroness Gould of Potternewton Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend takes me back to happy days watching “Dr Finlay’s Casebook”. I seem to remember that Dr Snoddie always had an encounter with Mistress Niven, who came down with all manner of complaints and ailments that the redoubtable duo usually diagnosed and dealt with.

My noble friend is correct. We have to ensure that we have the right people trained at the right level to deliver this service and that we do not get bogged down in managerial bureaucracy. Health and well-being boards will be a vehicle for public health, social care, the GP consortia, when they are formed, and the patient organisations, such as HealthWatch, to come around the same table, so to speak—maybe literally—in order to look at the broader health needs of an area and decide on priorities. I see that as powerfully playing into the public health agenda. This will be far from being a process that is bogged down in bureaucracy.

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

My Lords, I welcome this document as well as the concept of cross-party working on public health services. I particularly welcome, as the Minister might expect me to say, the references in the document to improving sexual health.

I have a number of questions. On the directors of public health, the Minister talked about them being at the right level. What level is that expected to be within the framework of local government? Unless they have a high status within local government then, unfortunately, they might not be able to influence some of the things that they might want to influence. I have another question regarding the directors. In working with GP consortia, what if there is a difference of view that needs to be resolved? Who takes the final decision? Who has the final say in respect of that?

How is it going to be determined whether an area qualifies for the new health premiums? With regard to ring-fenced budgeting, the aid support grant lost its ring-fencing. Does that mean that it will be in the public health ring-fenced budget or not?

When the independent advisory group on sexual health, of which I was chair, was abolished, we were told that a new sexual health organisation would be established. What will be the process for that and when is it likely to happen?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me a number of questions there. I may not be able to answer all of them now, but I will certainly write on those that I cannot.

As I mentioned earlier, it is important to recognise that in part the status of directors of public health will be confirmed by virtue of not simply being appointed locally, but also by being appointed from the centre by Public Health England. That will confer an added status to them. With the dual accountability that I referred to, primary accountability would be to their employer, the local authority, but the Secretary of State would have a backstop power to dismiss directors of public health on the basis of a failure to discharge local authority responsibilities in the area of health protection. Again, while one does not want to dwell on that power, it signifies that this is a person who will be there very much as the representative of the Secretary of State.

The noble Baroness asked what happens if there is a difference of view. Differences of view will arise but the important point to emphasise here is that we want to see them sorted out at a local level wherever possible. That will not always be possible but it should be the aim that health and well-being boards and consortia should decide, in the light of the joint strategic needs assessment and other factors, what the priorities are locally and how the budget is to be spent. It has to be that way: second-guessing from the centre is bound to lead to perverse consequences. However, there will be mechanisms available to ensure that the NHS commissioning board will have a role in trying to resolve these issues and the noble Baroness will see, when we publish the health and social care Bill, that the Secretary of State will have a backstop power in extremis.

She asked about the health premium. We will be publishing a document for discussion on this. We want to hear the views of everybody as to how this should work. Clearly, if a health premium is paid it has to reflect a measure of genuine progress in reducing health inequalities, while recognising that some areas start off with the handicap of having particularly deprived communities to work with and that the task is thereby more difficult. It is important that the department receives the views of interested parties to see how this is going to work.

On sexual health, we are looking to see what more can be done to increase the awareness of risks, prevent infection and promote access to screening and treatment. The consultation documents, which will be issued shortly, will set out the proposed funding and commissioning routes for public health services, including how comprehensive sexual health services might best be commissioned. I hope the noble Baroness will feed into that.

Healthcare

Baroness Gould of Potternewton Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

My Lords, I will concentrate my remarks on public health, particularly sexual health, on which I have spoken so often in this Chamber. It is clear that the White Paper does not understand current provision for sexual health, to which I shall return in a moment. First, I should declare an interest as chair—I still am for another few weeks—of the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV. I am encouraged that sexual health is still on the agenda, with a new committee being established. I hope that the committee will have the capacity to ensure that sexual health and HIV does not go back to the days of being the Cinderella service that it was under the last Conservative Government.

The introduction of a public health service, incorporating all aspects of sexual health, could provide the opportunity to commission improved and holistic sexual health and HIV services, and to join those up with other allied public health services. But, as my noble friend said, local government will be taking on this responsibility with no experience in the field whatever. There has to be clarity as to who will be responsible for commissioning sexual health and HIV services.

I am not in any way opposing the concept of patient choice and I am pleased that it will cover aspects of long-term care. But there is a uniqueness about sexual health, for health promotion and healthcare have been and should continue to be clearly linked. To maintain that link, overlapping frameworks for health, public health and social care are essential, which has been achieved in the sexual health field by community clinics. Where do community clinics for STIs and contraception fit into the new structure, because there is no mention of them? Has an impact assessment been undertaken to identify their value? They have provided a model of patient choice from a range of providers. That model is now threatened by the shift to GP commissioning. Considering that few GPs want to take on this work, I have to ask whether the community clinics will continue and whether the GP consortium will commission them to do the work.

A matter of great concern is education and training, which will now be the responsibility of providers. An enormous knowledge gap has to be filled by GPs, nurses, and local authority staff. Who will determine the level of training required? Who will pay for it? Who will determine the level of standardisation and accreditation that is required? A lack of experience among GPs and local government means that it is unlikely that they will be able to commission effectively.

Many patients want support and advice to make sense of their options. It is therefore essential that all patients have confidence and trust in the choices being offered, which means a workforce that is properly trained and skilled. With the abolition of the PCTs and SHAs, this will be further exacerbated because many staff are already leaving the service. That loss of trained personnel will seriously affect the whole question of how much training will be needed. Patient choice and quality of service are already being diminished by closures of services in public health and in some hospitals. For instance, one consultation document produced by the Government talks about choice for those who are dying. At the same time, I am aware of at least one special NHS unit to ease dying for the patient and their families that has been closed down. Those people are not being given a choice and their objections are not being listened to. There are cuts in the provision of chlamydia screening, with clinics closing and reductions in contraceptive services. These front-line services are easy options for cuts which will deny the patient not only choice but access to services.

Many issues arising from the White Paper still have to be resolved, but how do we convert rhetoric into reality? At the moment we have fine words but we need much more than that: we need absolute detail.

Health: Cancer

Baroness Gould of Potternewton Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend is absolutely correct. It is now generally agreed that the most important reasons for the lower survival rates in England compared with other European countries are: low public awareness of the signs and symptoms of cancer, delays in people presenting to their doctors, and patients having more advanced disease at the time of diagnosis. We are looking very carefully at how best to achieve earlier diagnosis. There are some key messages on the NHS Choices website and the national awareness and early diagnosis initiative has been under way since 2008. As for my noble friend’s second question, on the blood test, the newspaper reports in recent days have been extremely exciting in terms of the potential. However, it is clear that researchers will have to demonstrate improved clinical outcomes for patients before any large-scale rollout can be applied.

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

My Lords, given the Minister’s reply, does he agree that targeted screening remains the best way to prevent growth of oral cancer? Given the success of the previous Government in cutting the overall rates of cancer deaths, is he prepared to guarantee that the current investment and screening programme will continue?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness is quite right that screening plays a very important part in the detection of cancer. However, it is not universally applicable to every cancer. In terms of oral cancer, which was the particular subject of my noble friend’s Question, there are difficulties. For example, there is considerable uncertainty about how the disease progresses—its natural history—and we cannot predict which lesions will be malignant and which will not. We need clear guidelines—for dentists, for example—and we do not have those. There is also no clear evidence base for the management of malignant lesions when we find them. However, the National Screening Committee will review its position again in about three years’ time and will no doubt take all the current evidence into account.