|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Department does not collect referral to treatment waiting times data at constituency level or at county level. However, the following table shows the average referral to treatment times for the Sefton primary care trust (PCT) which serves the Crosby constituency and for neighbouring PCTs in April 2009 (latest published data):
|Median referral to treatment times|
|Admitted pathways||Non-admitted pathways|
Department of Health referral to treatment data
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department has allocated to the NHS research and development programme for research into treatments and services for patients with adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in the last five years. 
Gillian Merron: Both the Department and the Medical Research Council support attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) research. Available annual expenditure data are shown in the following table.
|Expenditure on ADHD research|
|Department of Health||Medical Research Council|
|(1 )Not yet available.|
The Departmental figures relate to national research programmes. They do not include expenditure on ADHD research from the research and development allocations made from 2004-05 to 2007-08 to national health service organisations as that information is not held centrally.
Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many (a) full-time, (b) full-time equivalent and (c) part-time staff from his Department provided support for the production and publication of the report of the Independent Review of NHS Dental Services in England; 
Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reported cases of malaria there have been in (a) England, (b) the North East, (c) Teesside and (d) Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency in the last 10 years. 
|England||North East (Tyne and Wear, Durham, Cleveland, Northumberland)|
The Health Protection Agency's Malaria Reference Laboratory
Anne Milton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for the Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunisation's assessment of the two new candidate vaccines for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. 
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) people, (b) under 18-year-olds, (c) under 16-year-olds and (d) under 12-year-olds were treated with methadone in each of the last five years; and what the (i) mean, (ii) median and (iii) longest time was for which people in each category were on methadone in each year. 
Gillian Merron: Information is not held centrally on the number, age of patients treated with a particular drug or the duration of their treatment programme. The following table shows the number of people receiving prescribing treatment for the previous four years.
The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuses National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS) has been collecting data on people in drug treatment in England since 2004-05. NDTMS records the numbers of people receiving specialist prescribing rather than the specific substitute drug a drug misuser in treatment is prescribed. Therefore while most receive oral methadone, some people may be prescribed buprenorphine or other substitute opioids.
|Number of individuals receiving prescribing treatment (including methadone)|
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 21 April 2009, Official Report, column 581W, on Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, if he will place in the Library a copy of the version of the report sent to his Department on 20 February 2009 by the Healthcare Commission; and on what dates less complete versions were sent to his officials. 
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Departmental officials received incomplete drafts, without substantive findings or appendices on 18 December 2008 and 6 February 2009. We do not propose to place them in the Library because they were provided in confidence to check factual accuracy. It is in the public interest that reports that are factually accurate should be published and that information for checking can be shared in confidence.
Mr. Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the percentage uplift to the tariff to take account of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) technology appraisals and clinical guidelines has been in each year since the introduction of payment by results; which NICE technology appraisals have met the criteria for tariff adjustment; what the tariff adjustment was in each such case; and on what date each such NICE technology appraisal was published. 
Mr. Mike O'Brien: The following table sets out the proportion of the annual tariff uplift that relates to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) technology appraisals, clinical guidelines and secondary care drugs prices:
|Tariff year||Uplift (percentage)|
1. Uplift figures are taken from information published each year to support the implementation of Payment by Results, available on the Departments website at:
2. For consistency, the uplift figures combine NICE appraisals/clinical guidelines and secondary care drugs prices, as from 2008-09 onwards these elements have not been separately identified in the tariff uplift breakdown.
3. All figures are net of Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) adjustments.
4. Figures are provided from 2005-06 onwards, as this was the first year in which Payment by Results was applicable for all trusts.
Information on which NICE technology appraisals have met the criteria for tariff adjustment, and the dates on which they were published, is contained in the Payment by Results (PbR) guidance documents for the years 2005-06 to 2009-10. These guidance documents also contain information on specific adjustments made where NICE appraisals can be mapped to specific Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs).
Information on the proportion of the tariff uplift that can be assigned to individual NICE appraisals is not available. This is because when setting the tariff uplift, the Department makes use of a range of estimates and forecasts and makes a judgment about the appropriate level. In assessing the cost pressures associated with drugs and NICE appraisals, account is taken of the fact that some drugs and devices fall outside the scope of PbR (and are priced locally) or are subject to a specific HRG adjustment.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: No such assessment has been made. The quality adjusted life year is an internationally recognised tool for measuring health outcomes that has been refined and verified over many years. It is helpful in assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of different health interventions, helping to balance the twin imperatives of high quality and good value. High quality care and best value for taxpayers money are principles set out in the national health service constitution.
Mr. Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made in implementing (a) recommendation 4 and (b) the other recommendations made in the report by Professor Mike Richards on Improving access to medicines for NHS patients, published on 4 November 2008; 
(2) what progress has been made in the review by strategic health authorities of arrangements to support collaboration in (a) decision-making on the use of new medicines, (b) exceptional funding requests and (c) the use of medicines outside their licensed indication. 
Mr. Mike O'Brien: With regard to the progress made in implementing recommendation 4 of Professor Mike Richards report and the review by strategic health authorities, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) on 25 June 2009, Official Report, column 1119W.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|