I will respond briefly to that. We all have tremendous sympathy with the fact that very many rare conditions are not currently commissioned to the standard that we would wish. It is also true, by the way, that many ordinary conditions are not commissioned to the standard of service across health and social care which we think would be best for the patients. That is undoubtedly true, but we would not necessarily fix that by having a special focus on the way we say where it is going to be commissioned. What we need are specialists in each of those rare conditions' groups to be consulted, to ask patients and their relatives about how they should be commissioned, and some professional advice about the epidemiology of it.
Noble Lords should remember that the national Commissioning Board has the ability in this Bill to use, for example, the good offices of their local offices that will regionally be able to ensure that clinical commissioning groups can come together to commission properly for rare conditions. That is already happening around the country, and that is more likely to be a way forward than this particular statutory amendment. I am not saying that those rare conditions do not need some focus and better commissioning: they certainly do.
Health and Social Care Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Murphy
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 29 February 2012.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Health and Social Care Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
735 c1319-20 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:46:04 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_813332
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_813332
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_813332