Health and Social Care Bill

My Lords, I have put my name to several amendments in this group, some of which are in my name only. Initially, I will speak to Amendments 125A, 125B, 195A and 195B. These are designed to ensure that the Commissioning Board considers the potentially destabilising effect of new providers choosing to deliver only simple or profitable services, and the effect on existing providers who provide a wider range of services. Clause 101 includes provision for providers, "““to set transparent eligibility and selection criteria"," in relation to treating NHS patients. This is intended to ensure that risk selection does not take place on the part of providers, whereby they accept for treatment only less complex cases or patients, with a view to maximising profit. The Bill also instructs Monitor and the board to take account of the different types of patients treated by providers, and the range of services offered. The amendments suggest that this must also be considered in the national tariff, when that is used, because in looking at tariff adjustments, the Bill does not adequately safeguard against the potentially destabilising effect on existing providers, where other providers choose to deliver only simple or profitable services. This could increase the relative burden on those providers who deliver a wide range of services, including ones that are more complex and less profitable; also when they provide support at a tertiary rather than a secondary care level, they are providing support into other secondary care services. The amendments would ensure that when the board and clinical commissioning groups discharge their duties in relation to patient choice, they have regard to the effect on the stability of the local health economy and the providers within it; and that they provide this wide range for their patients. I have made inquiries about what is already happening around the country and I am grateful to the British Association of Dermatologists for giving me some information. It has reported to me that private providers already appear to have been awarded contracts without the appropriate range of specialist staff in situ when starting a service; and private providers appear to be contracted to deliver services that are not necessarily integrated with the existing local secondary care services. They are also decommissioning in isolation without looking at the impact on other local specialist services. For a subject such as dermatology, that becomes really important, because it has a small but important role when extremely complex conditions are looked after by other secondary care providers, and where sometimes the skin holds a light to the true diagnosis. The association has also drawn to my attention the problem in which some providers set up outpatient clinics which have no educational component. By doing that, they are setting up clinics which are unsuitable for secondary care training, both to doctors in training and nurses who want to train to become specialist nurses. This is a field in which a rising number of specialist nurses have an increasingly important role. The amendments are also designed to make sure that choice is appropriate and that the Commissioning Board does not have to prioritise patient choice over efficiency and effectiveness; quality of services; or over its duties to reduce inequalities and promote integration. These are important duties in the Bill, which many of us have welcomed. I hope that the priority for those is paramount, because they will affect the population at large and reduce inequalities. Regarding Amendments 175A and 175B, I want to outline briefly why it would be important to be able to appoint a secondary care clinician from within a clinical commissioning group area, rather than being restricted either to somebody from outside the area or somebody who is retired. As we have already debated, there is a great need to promote integration. The report Teams Without Walls, to which I have already referred, stressed the importance of this integration with clinical leadership across primary and secondary care. The Government’s commitment, in response to the Future Forum’s report, that clinical commissioning boards would include at least one specialist doctor and a nurse was welcomed. I hope there will be some reciprocity by having a general practitioner representation on the board at foundation NHS trust board level, at a governance level, to facilitate such integration. I was concerned that the Secretary of State for Health stated that a hospital doctor on the Commissioning Board should either be from outside the area or be retired. I was particularly concerned about the latter, because there did not seem to be any statement about how recently that person should have retired. People rapidly become out of date with what is going on in an area. For those doctors who work in a fairly large geographical area, it would mean that the secondary care doctor may have to travel a great distance, and perhaps be represented on the clinical commissioning group of an area where the secondary care services are pretty well unknown to him. In saying that, I draw on my own experience of being previously on a health board simply adjacent to the one in which I worked. There were many times when I felt I could contribute much more at a local level, across different services, because of having an in-depth knowledge, than having to explore the various ramifications of secondary care services in the area of the health board on which I sat before I was able to contribute fully to the debate within the board itself. I also believe that it would help to drive up standards if somebody came from within the board. In saying that, it is important that we learn lessons from problems that have arisen. No one wants to prejudge what the Francis inquiry will recommend but the transcript of the oral evidence that doctors gave to the inquiry appears to indicate that the doctors and the hospital were isolated; that they did not have good networks with other local doctors who worked in different environments; and that when they complained about standards of care they did not report their concerns outside the trust’s structures. That suggests a degree of geographical isolation. There would be merit in reconsidering the stipulation and the restriction that the doctor must be drawn from outside the area. I do not believe that appointing a clinician from within the clinical commissioning group area results in an unmanageable conflict of interest. First, the role of the secondary care doctor is to offer expertise to inform commissioning decision-making, not to represent one hospital or one specialty. Secondly, GPs will have the same degree of conflict of interest. Therefore, I suggest that the safeguards against this affecting their decision-making need to apply to other healthcare professionals—whoever they are—who sit on the clinical commissioning boards. That also applies to the nurse who sits on the board. Since the secondary care doctor would not represent any one provider or specialty, there would be no conflict. The model of having a single representative across specialties is not new and exists within the current system—for example, with medical directors in trusts. Other clinical advice will come from clinical networks and senates, and there will be a degree of co-terminosity in the advice received by the clinical commissioning group. That might allow a degree of consistency, which would support some of the difficult decisions that the group will have to make, particularly about issues such as decommissioning services. Therefore, the secondary care doctor will not be able to overrule or push a personal agenda. They will be bound to governing board decisions in the usual way and should have no right of veto. I hope that the Government will reconsider the position of the person on the clinical commissioning group. For the involvement of patients, it is important to differentiate between public involvement and the involvement of each individual patient in the management of their care and treatment. Amendments 194 and 195 seem important if the mantra and important principle of ““no decision about me without me”” is to be made real. That phrase is one of the most important things that this Government have put in place. It is certainly a phrase that I have often used in making presentations about various aspects of healthcare delivery. The importance of involving patients is made clear when you look at the 17 million patients with long-term conditions, many of whom provide more than 80 per cent of their care themselves or with the help of their relatives. If patients understand what is going on with their illness and how to manage their condition, their demands on the health service will decrease. The Health Foundation is developing ways of embedding techniques for supporting people to manage their care and treatment through its Co-creating Health programme. This has already been shown to have excellent outcomes by empowering individual patients to take a degree of control over their own illness and condition. Therefore, I hope that the amendments in my name will be considered by the Government in revising some of the apparently restrictive aspects of the Bill.