Proceeding contribution from Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 19 December 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Health and Social Care Bill.
Health and Social Care Bill
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. At heart, there are two key issues here. One is the independence of NICE—I am grateful for what the noble Earl said on that. I certainly support the change in status. The reason there is some anxiety about independence is that in two parts of the Bill the NHS Commissioning Board has powers of direction over NICE. We will come on to this in relation to Clause 231 on quality standards,—it applies also to Clause 236 but this is where some of the concern comes from. I am very dubious about whether quangos, to put it kindly, should have power over NICE. That is where the concern comes from and why scrutiny by the Health Select Committee of the chair would be important. The noble Earl has reassured us that the technology appraisals will continue and that, until value-based pricing is introduced, there will be a clear understanding that NHS bodies will implement the technology appraisals. He said that it would not be appropriate for those directions to the health service to be in the Bill, but can he clarify that the current order will be amended so that instead of directions to health authorities, primary care trusts and NHS trusts in England, clinical commissioning groups will appear in the title of the order? It is quite clear that although this will be done by secondary legislation, clinical commissioning groups will be required. I take his point about the need for discretion when it comes to primary legislation, but I would like to ask him about that point. My third point to the noble Earl is about value-based pricing. One of the joys of talking about value-based pricing is that no one understands it, and, frankly, having read all the reports and the original OXERA report, I confess that I am still rather puzzled by it. It sounds good, but I caution the Government that the PPRS has served us reasonably well. It has allowed the Government to cap the profits of the pharmaceutical industry but has given them complete discretion about the price of individual drugs—the advantage being that prices set in the UK have then been influential throughout the rest of Europe. My concern about value-based pricing is that, combined with issues around the regulation of medical health research, it makes the UK a less attractive place for the industry to invest in R&D. My noble friend Lord Warner toured the boardrooms of New York and New Jersey, and I followed him to sweep up—
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 733 c1639-40
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disability Children Codes of practice Housing Health Health services Health professions General Social Care Council Local government NHS Membership Public appointments Prisoners Pharmacy Nurses Ombudsman National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Registration Standards Special educational needs Training Regulation Reform Wales Social services Students Social workers Health Service Commissioner (Wales) Health Service Commissioner Health Professions Council Anaesthetics Physiology Health and wellbeing boards Clinical commissioning groups
- Legislation
- Health and Social Care Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 14:59:33 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_796688
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_796688
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_796688