Health and Social Care Bill

My Lords, I have put my name to several of the amendments in this group—namely, Amendments 112, 113, 115, 186, 187 and 189—all of which are aimed at reducing inequalities. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has spoken about this. I will not repeat her arguments, other than simply to say that my reason for adding my name to these amendments was that it struck me that the words ““act with a view to reducing inequalities”” were not strong enough. Unless commissioning must have regard to the need to reduce inequalities, we will not improve the health of the nation. Perhaps I may make a comment on Amendment 109A, which is a probing amendment and refers to NICE. I just want to place on record other areas of standard-establishment, such as the National Prescribing Centre and the audits and independent service reviews that are undertaken by the medical royal colleges. These are available and can be very informative. The service accreditation standards that they have produced are aimed at driving the equality improvement agenda and draw to the attention of the Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups the role of audits and the information that they can receive from audits, which are intended to drive up equality and reduce inequalities in service provision. I also have in my name Amendment 299C, which seems to be almost an orphan amendment in this group but is there. It relates to private work. My reason for tabling it is that for a long time there has been confusion over what is private and what is NHS. The Bill also highlights a complexity about what is private and what is third-sector provision. Until now, third-sector services outside the NHS have generally tended to be lumped together in regulation. We will be facing different models in the non-NHS sector ranging from for-profit, through not-for-profit, to the voluntary sector as we know it today. One of the difficulties is making sure that patients are not recruited into the private practice of an individual who sees them during an NHS consultation. The fine balance between information-giving and recruiting should be clarified in guidance. Patients may ask what the waiting time is and whether they could have their intervention, investigation or whatever done more quickly if they went privately. I am concerned that the way the information is given may skew the patient’s perception of it and the patient can then feel they actually ought to go privately. This may be for the profit of that individual practitioner but not necessarily make a great deal of difference to the clinical outcome of the patient. It is, therefore, a very difficult and fine line, but unless we begin to address it now, we will run into the same problems as we have had, for example, with top-up payments, where we had a lot of debates leading to the establishment of the Cancer Drugs Fund across the UK. We will be facing the same situation, but more so, with many other drugs that come along for non-cancer diseases. The new biologics are very powerful drugs which can be extremely effective but are extremely expensive. I am concerned that a commissioning group might decide that one of these new biologic drugs, even though it goes through all the benchmarking standards required, is something they are just not going to pay for locally. Private sector provision will, therefore, be driving patients who cannot afford to access these treatments, who are not privately insured, and whose quality of life is so severely undermined by their illness—because it is only for severe disease that these drugs are indicated—that they will not be able to work or earn without accessing them. They could therefore find themselves in a double bind. My amendment is, of course, a probing amendment and I would not intend it to be anything more. If the Minister does not want to respond to these points today, I would nevertheless urge him at least to consider them in the guidance produced for the Commissioning Board and providers on the interface between the public and private sectors.