Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what proportion of NHS acute hospital trusts in England met (1) their four-hour targets for A&E waiting times, and (2) their 62-day target for cancer treatment, in (a) 2009–10, and (b) 2022–23.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The information is not available in the format requested, as the National Health Service does not routinely report the proportion of providers meeting accident and emergency and cancer performance standards.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what proportion of NHS acute hospital trusts currently have average waiting times for elective surgery over six months; and what are the names of those trusts.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
18 out of the 135, or 13.3%, of National Health Service trusts in England currently have an average waiting time for elective surgery of over six months. This has been defined as those NHS trusts with a median wait time for patients with a decision to admit that is over 26 weeks. Due to the size of the data, a spreadsheet is attached which includes a table listing the average waiting time for NHS trusts in England.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government when was the last year that the NHS in England achieved (1) its four-hour target for A&E waiting times, (2) its 62-day target for cancer treatment, and (3) an average waiting time for elective surgery under six months.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The accident and emergency target and 62-day cancer treatment targets were last met at a national level in 2015. The average waiting time for elective surgery is currently under six months.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what proportion of acute hospital trusts in England regularly conduct NHS operations on (1) Saturdays, and (2) Sundays; and whether this information is able to be published so that patients may exercise choice.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The information requested is shown in the attached table. This is existing Hospital Episode Statistics data that is already published by NHS England.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to refer the Impact Assessment for the 2023 Statutory Scheme to control the cost of branded health services medicines to the Regulatory Policy Committee.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
There are no plans to refer the statutory scheme Impact Assessment to the Regulatory Policy Committee. The proposals only impact companies which choose to sell to the National Health Service and are therefore considered to be in connection with procurement. Given this, the statutory exclusion from the Better Regulation Framework “Procurement 22(4)(b)” applies as confirmed previously by the Economic and Domestic Affairs Secretariat at the Cabinet Office.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the proposed update to the 2023 Statutory Scheme to control the cost of branded health services medicines, what policy options were included in the Department of Health and Social Care's long list as alternatives to the options that were included in the final consultation.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The statutory scheme consultation sets out the options under consideration. We are in the process of analysing the responses provided, including consideration of any alternative options proposed, and will update on our preferred policy approach later this year. A copy of the impact assessment is attached.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the proposed update to the 2023 Statutory Scheme to control the cost of branded health services medicines, what analysis and evidence the Department of Health and Social Care considered when it proposed to keep growth in the cost of branded medicines in real-terms decline, at 2 per cent a year.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
2% allowed growth per annum represents an 80% rise in allowed growth compared to the 1.1% per annum which applied in the statutory scheme from 2019 to 2023. The proposal is consistent with the approach that underpinned the current statutory scheme’s 1.1% allowed growth, i.e., it equals the average allowed growth of the preceding voluntary scheme.
The proposed allowed growth rate considered multiple factors including the overall fiscal path. Furthermore, consideration of the pipeline of upcoming new treatments featured within our forecast growth in spend on new treatments and, ultimately, continued growth forecast in medicine sales.
Controlling growth at this level is considered to allow for a viable overall envelope for the statutory scheme more favourable for industry compared to the existing statutory scheme arrangements, whilst continuing to ensure that spend on branded medicines is affordable to the National Health Service.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Proposed update to the 2023 Statutory Scheme to control the cost of branded medicines, whether the 2 per cent cap in growth in the cost of branded medicines was assessed against (1) inflation expectations, and (2) demographic pressures.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
2% allowed growth per annum represents an 80% rise in allowed growth compared to the 1.1% per annum which applied in the statutory scheme from 2019 to 2023. The proposal is consistent with the approach that underpinned the current statutory scheme’s 1.1% allowed growth, i.e., it equals the average allowed growth of the preceding voluntary scheme.
The proposed allowed growth rate considered multiple factors including the overall fiscal path. Furthermore, consideration of the pipeline of upcoming new treatments featured within our forecast growth in spend on new treatments and, ultimately, continued growth forecast in medicine sales.
Controlling growth at this level is considered to allow for a viable overall envelope for the statutory scheme more favourable for industry compared to the existing statutory scheme arrangements, whilst continuing to ensure that spend on branded medicines is affordable to the National Health Service.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to introduce an end of scheme reconciliation exercise for the Statutory Scheme to control the cost of branded health services medicines.
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
No end of scheme reconciliation exercise was proposed in the recent consultation on updating the statutory scheme. We are in the process of considering consultation responses.
Asked by: Lord Warner (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the evidence that the Department of Health and Social Care used to support the statement in the consultation on the Statutory Scheme to control the cost of branded health services medicines that investment in research and development in the UK was not a "net benefit".
Answered by Lord Markham - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The approach to assessing the potential impacts on investment within the statutory scheme’s impact assessment followed well-established precedent and is in line with the Green Book paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6. As such, the impact assessment considers spillover benefits of investment, with a literature review suggesting an estimated mean benefit of 34% of the overall investment, but does not account for these within the net present value calculation due to investment being one of several possible company responses to change in profitability.