Proceeding contribution from Baroness Thornton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 24 June 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Health and Social Care Bill.
Health and Social Care Bill
My Lords, I fully appreciate the intention behind this amendment to achieve maximum transparency about the decision to fund treatments beyond PCTs’ stated commissioning policies and I agree with the noble Earl that transparency is key. In the commissioning cycle, PCTs will need to effectively engage patients and the public, assess needs and prioritise investment. They will have to be proactive in seeking out the views and experiences of the public, patients and other stakeholders and they will need to demonstrate clearly how they are discharging their responsibilities. In addition, they will need to have the capacity to consider applications from clinicians and patients who believe that genuinely exceptional circumstances apply in their particular case. The assessment of such cases requires a delicate balance to be struck between the genuine desire to give an individual patient care that may benefit them and the PCT’s wider responsibility to commission services that deliver the best results in terms of gain for the whole population. The Government expect PCTs to have in place appropriate processes for reaching decisions on applications for treatments that are not normally funded, but the details and operation of such processes are for local determination. I understand the concerns that have been expressed about the accessibility and transparency of individual PCT arrangements and I agree that it is desirable that PCTs should publish information on those arrangements. I believe that many already make such information available and I am told by my noble friend—without giving any secrets away—that the next-stage review addresses this issue. We are, I believe, in agreement on the good practice that PCTs should follow in making available this kind of information to patients and clinicians, but we think that it is inappropriate to set such a requirement in primary legislation, particularly as there are already systems in place to ensure that PCTs are accountable to their local population for their commissioning policies. I hope that this will provide enough reassurance for the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 702 c1401-2
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Disclosure of information Dental services Contracts Devolved matters Care homes Advisory services Health Health services Fees and charges Inspections Health professions General practitioners Local government NHS Medical treatments Northern Ireland Public appointments Pharmacy Older people Primary care trusts Negligence NHS foundation trusts Quarantine Scotland Registration Standards Regulation Social services Commission for Social Care Inspection Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence Monitor Care Quality Commission Office of the Health Professions Adjudicator Local involvement networks
- Legislation
- Health and Social Care Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 23:33:01 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_486038
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_486038
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_486038