Health and Social Care Bill

I support Amendment 18B, which is also included under the heading, "““Duty as to improvement in quality of services””," of the proposed new Section 1A to the 2006 Act. I speak on behalf of particular interest group: the old. I declare an interest. I was for 18 months the government-appointed Voice of Older People. The interest group for which I speak is large and growing larger. Some 10 million people are now over 65 in the UK. In 2034, 23 per cent of the population will be over 65 of whom 3.5 million will be of the older old—over 85. That age, 85, is significant to the amendment. The amendment is to new Section 1A(3), proposed in Clause 2, dealing with the Secretary of State’s duty to seek continuous improvement in the outcomes, and it lists the relevant outcomes to be measured: effectiveness, safety and quality. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others about the important amendments to that. Amendment 18B seeks to add a fourth consideration—and a rather odd one—which is that, "““These outcomes should not exclude sections of the population due to age””." That phrase sits uneasily here—it would sit uneasily anywhere—because it is not of a kind like any other. However, it is important for the many people who will be numbered in the data on which outcomes are based—or, rather, not listed in the data. The NHS Outcomes Framework 2011/12, which sets out outcomes and corresponding indicators, states: "““Where indicators are included which can be compared internationally, levels of ambition will work towards the goal of achieving outcomes which are among the best in the world””—" a laudable aim indeed. However, the document goes on later to state: "““Current data collections are limited in the extent to which this is possible … We recognise that there are certain groups or areas which the framework may not effectively capture at present, simply because the data and data collections available do not allow outcomes for these groups to be identified””." In the document’s charts that show the overarching indicators, it is clear that many of the indicators stop at the age of 75. The indicators specify the mortality rates from cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and liver disease. Thus, the data on deaths from such causes over the age of 75 are not monitored under the outcomes framework, despite the fact that life expectancy is far higher than 75. It is also clear that many of the data are under development. I understand that, and there is work to be done. As the document states: "““This is the first NHS Outcomes Framework and … it is intended to signal the direction of travel for the NHS””." The direction of travel for the population of this country is to have a much higher percentage of older old people. We already have more than 12,000 centenarians. Throughout debates on this Bill, I will be pressing for considerations of age to be written specifically into its provisions. Why do we need to be so explicit? Surely we are all citizens, we are all taxpayers and, in the end, we are all patients. That is of course the reasonable case, but that is not how care is experienced. A recent report commissioned by the Department of Health concluded: "““Evidence of the under-investigation and under-treatment of older people in cancer care, cardiology and stroke is so widespread and strong that, even taking into account confounding factors ""such as frailty, co-morbidity and polypharmacy we must conclude that ageist attitudes are having an effect on overall investigation and treatment levels””." That was in a report published for the Department of Health. To give just a simple anecdotal example from broader practice, although the risk of breast cancer increases with age, the general-practice reminders that are sent out to women to invite them to mammograms stop once a woman reaches the age of 70. My amendment seeks to make clear, and even overemphasise, that all outcomes include all sections of the population. Prevailing attitudes to the old require that to be spelled out in the Bill.