argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Sajid Javid (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue and rightly highlights the need for co-ordinated Government action. Public Health England has already published a cold weather plan, which gives recommendations for the NHS and public health and social care and community organisations to work together and help the people who are most vulnerable this winter.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Questions: North Devon Council and the coastal communities team have just heard that their bid for funding for Ilfracombe’s excellent new water sports centre has made it through to the next round. Will the Minister congratulate them and agree that this is an excellent example of this Government reinventing our coastal communities?; The northern powerhouse project has brought much needed investment, attention and cohesion to northern cities like mine of Manchester. So why is it that many of the key players involved in the northern powerhouse project, including former Ministers, now feel that the programme has been all but cancelled?; Local business rates retention will be a great boost for many local councils. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with local authorities about 100% retention?; The revaluation of property for business rates is creating uncertainty for businesses and local authorities. Stockton faces two different problems: small leisure businesses have been priced out of our town centre; and telecommunications companies are fighting their valuations, potentially knocking huge holes in the council’s budget. How will small businesses be protected? Will the Minister assure me that the 2017-18 finance settlement will take future valuations and changes into account so that Stockton Council will be no worse off?; The rapid growth in our elderly population is a key driver of housing demand, so what are the Government doing to ensure that we are building not only enough homes, but enough of the right homes for an ageing society?; How is the Government’s proposal for 100% business rates retention compatible with the statement in their consultation document that there will be“a level of redistribution between authorities similar to the current system of 9 tariffs and top-ups”?; I welcome the Prime Minister’s determination to keep the Union together. With devolution to councils and cities and to areas such as the northern powerhouse, can we have regular meetings with the devolved Governments and their oppositions to ensure that we are all pulling together?
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): I would like to refer to the question raised by my friend, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who mentioned the link between mental health and homelessness. Does the Secretary of State understand that the reports say there is a link, with 60% of people from the homeless community also having mental health issues? What is he doing to liaise with the Department of Health and with local authorities to change that link?
European Council — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Defense
Theresa Mary May (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman does not need to tell me about the importance of our security and law enforcement co-operation with our European partners. I simply refer him to my statement, where I said: "After we leave, we will be a confident, outward-looking country, enthusiastic about trading freely with our European neighbours and co-operating on our shared security interests, including on law enforcement and counter-terrorism work."
European Council — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Defense
Theresa Mary May (Conservative, Centre-right): In the quote given by the hon. Gentleman, I think the Secretary-General was talking about NATO operating and working with any defence arrangements in the European Union; it was not about the UK being part of stronger defence within the European Union. We will continue to play a leading role in NATO, as we have done over the years. We will continue to have a close relationship with the European Union, and it will be in all our interests to ensure that we work together for the collective defence of member states and of Europe.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Jeremy Richard Streynsham Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time This is a short and focused Bill which is vitally important not only for the NHS but for patients. NHS spending on medicines is second only to staffing costs. The Health and Social Care Information Centre—now NHS Digital—estimated that the NHS in England spent over £15.2 billion on medicines during 2015-16, a rise of nearly 20% since 2010-2011. With advances in science and our ageing population, those costs can only continue to grow Medicines are of course a vital part of patient care in the NHS, both in hospitals and in the community. Thanks to the research and development efforts of the life sciences industry—an industry which contributes £56 billion and tens of thousands of jobs to the UK economy every year—our understanding of diseases and the best way to treat them has improved dramatically over the past 20 years. Who would have thought for instance that UK work pioneering superconducting magnets would result in MRI scanners—scanners which would save hundreds of lives each year through the early detection of breast cancer—or that the remarkable research by our National Institute for Health Research into translational medicine would lead to scientific breakthroughs in areas such as gene therapy being taken from the lab to the clinic? In a six-year period this has led to 340 patents, generating over £80 million from intellectual property This Government are committed to ensuring that patients get access to innovative and cost-effective medicines as quickly as possible. I pay tribute to the work carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who worked tirelessly in government to promote the life sciences industry, and who established the accelerated access review to provide clear recommendations on how the Government, the NHS and the industry can work together to ensure patients benefit from transformative new products much more quickly. That review was published today and is an excellent document which challenges everyone in the medicines system to up their game Our mission is to continue our progress in ensuring patients get rapid access to life-changing and cost-effective medicines. However, we also need to ensure that we are getting the best value for the NHS, which is why we have brought this Bill before the House The purpose of the Bill is to clarify and modernise provisions to control the cost of health service medicines and to ensure sales and purchase information can be appropriately collected and disclosed. These provisions will align the statutory and voluntary cost control mechanisms currently in existence, allow the Government to control the cost of excessively priced unbranded generic medicines, and ensure we have comprehensive data with which to reimburse people who dispense medicines. Taken together, these measures will enable us to secure better value for money for the NHS from its spend on medicines.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
James Roger Cartlidge (Conservative, Centre-right): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this effort. I recently received a written answer saying that last year GPs spent £85 million prescribing paracetamol. A packet of 500 mg paracetamol costs 19p in Asda, and I wonder whether this Bill will enable us to look those costs and whether such prescribing is appropriate.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Jeremy Richard Streynsham Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. Although the measures he mentions are not directly covered in this Bill, he reminds the House that the business of getting value for money from our drugs business is everyone’s business throughout the NHS. There is a huge amount of prescribing of medicines that is not strictly necessary. Indeed, we had further evidence of that from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges this morning. My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point: this Bill is part of the effort to get better value for money from our medicines budget, but initiatives such as the one he talks about are equally important.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Jeremy Richard Streynsham Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): It will deal with some of those concerns, and we will listen to all the concerns raised by hon. Members during the progress of the Bill. On the particular issue the hon. Gentleman raises, the CMA is already investigating the behaviour of pharmaceutical companies in certain situations, but it has become clear to us that there is a particularly unethical and unacceptable practice of drugs companies getting control of generic drugs for which they command a monopoly position and then hiking the prices. There was one product whose price increased by 12,000% between 2008 and 2016, and if the price had stayed the same as before the increase, the NHS would have spent £58 million less. The Government’s conclusion is that the simplest and quickest way to sort this out is through new legislation, but I will happily take the hon. Gentleman’s other concerns offline and look into them further.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
John Philip Glen (Conservative, Centre-right): I welcome the provisions of the Bill that will close a loophole and deal with terrible examples of where the NHS is in effect exploited, but can my right hon. Friend point to the future in light of the suggestion that the drugs bill will increase to £20 billion by 2020—a much more significant increase than can be afforded under the projected expenditure in the NHS? What bigger measures need to be put in place for us to deal substantively with that bigger problem?
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Jeremy Richard Streynsham Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is right in that we see demand for NHS services, which includes treatment and drugs, increasing by a total of around £30 billion over the next five-year period, which is a huge amount and certainly more than we as a country can afford without changing practice. That is why we are implementing a very challenging series of efficiency reforms designed to make sure that we can afford to continue current levels of NHS service on the £10 billion increase this Government are putting in. Part of that is indeed measures such as those in this Bill to control the drugs bill. My hon. Friend is also right that going forward over the next 25, rather than five, years we will be seeing the bigger issue of the accelerating pace of innovation in science. That provides great opportunities for the NHS, but potentially great pressures for the budget, and I am sure we will continue to discuss those issues extensively in this House.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Andrew William Murrison (Conservative, Centre-right): What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the impact this Bill might have on the parallel trade in pharmaceuticals, which he will know has both costs and benefits for the NHS and for patient care?
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Jeremy Richard Streynsham Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend obviously knows about these matters in a great deal of detail and should be reassured that this Bill should prevent people who are part of the current voluntary pharmaceutical price regulation scheme—PPRS—from parallel-importing through European subsidiaries, which currently under single market rules we are not able to do anything about. That loophole will be closed The first element of the Bill relates to controls on the cost of branded medicines. For many years the Government have had both statutory and voluntary arrangements in place with the pharmaceuticals industry to limit the overall cost of medicines to the NHS. Companies can choose to join either the voluntary scheme or the statutory scheme. Each voluntary scheme typically lasts for five years before a new scheme is negotiated The current voluntary scheme is the 2014 PPRS. The objectives of that agreement include keeping the branded health service medicines bill within affordable limits while supporting the availability and use of effective and innovative medicines. For industry, the PPRS provides companies with the certainty and backing they need to flourish both in the UK and in the global markets The current PPRS operates by requiring participating companies to make a payment to the Department of Health of a percentage of their NHS sales revenue when total sales exceed an agreed amount. So far the PPRS has resulted in £1.24 billion of payments, all of which have been reinvested back into the health service for the benefit of patients.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Jeremy Richard Streynsham Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It will be for this House and the Government to reflect prior to 2019 on whether it is worth carrying on with two schemes, which has been the arrangement for many years. Successive PPRS voluntary agreements have covered the vast majority of sales to the NHS and the statutory scheme has been a back-up for people who do not want to participate in the voluntary scheme. Recently, however, there has been an element of gaming the system whereby more and more firms have been moving from the voluntary scheme into the statutory scheme. The Bill will remove the incentives for them to switch between schemes and will make the benefits to the NHS essentially the same whichever scheme people choose. It will be for this House to reflect on and for the Government to consider whether the dual structure is right going forward.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Jeremy Richard Streynsham Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): Absolutely. The money comes back to the Department of Health and is invested in the NHS. Indeed, it would be wonderful if it was more than £1.24 billion, because there is an awful lot of need on the NHS frontline right now; the funds are much needed. Our concern is that companies have been exploiting the differences between the voluntary and statutory schemes, particularly the loophole, which the Bill seeks to close, that if companies have drugs in both schemes, we are unable to regulate at all the prices of the drugs that would ordinarily fall under the statutory scheme. That is why the Bill is so important.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Christopher Laurie Malthouse (Conservative, Centre-right): Notwithstanding the Bill’s objectives, which I can see are admirable, does the Secretary of State accept that hundreds of millions of pounds could be saved in the drugs budget if there was better analysis of NHS prescription patterns? I have called before for the appointment of analytical pharmacists to look at the balance between prescription efficacy and cost and at trying to increase the use of biosimilars. Some of that £1.24 billion could be invested in that greater analysis.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Jeremy Richard Streynsham Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes. My hon. Friend makes an important point. The third part of the Bill will provide for much better data collection to allow that analysis to take place. We are also seeking to break down the barriers between the pharmacy sector and general practice. During this Parliament, we will be financing 2,000 additional pharmacists to work in general practice so that we can learn exactly those sorts of lessons.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Sarah James (Wollaston) (Conservative, Centre-right): Further to that important point about biosimilars, and in welcoming this legislation and the opportunity to create savings for the NHS, will the Secretary of State also address the long-standing issues around Lucentis and Avastin? The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) updated the House about the barriers in both domestic and European legislation that prevent the use of Avastin—it is not licensed for wet age-related macular degeneration—but the scale of savings could be so vast that there is a case for introducing measures in the Bill to allow for such issues to be addressed.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Jeremy Richard Streynsham Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): I am happy to look into that—some of my own constituents have been affected by that issue. I am not aware that there is scope to consider that important point in the Bill, but we should reflect on what we can do to deal with some of the anomalies in the drug licensing regime that lead to the unintended consequences that my hon. Friend talks about We have a statutory scheme for companies that are not in the PPRS that is based on a cut to the list price of products, rather than a payment mechanism on company sales. Since the introduction of the rebate mechanism in the PPRS, the volumes of drugs going through it have been lower than estimated. At the same time, the statutory scheme has delivered lower savings than predicted. The inequity between the two schemes has led to some companies making commercial decisions to divest products from the PPRS to the statutory scheme, further reducing the savings to the NHS Last year, the Government consulted on options to reform the statutory medicines pricing scheme by introducing a payment mechanism, in place of the statutory price cut, broadly similar to that which exists in the PPRS. Our clear intention was to put in place voluntary and statutory schemes that were broadly comparable in terms of savings. Of course, companies are free to decide which scheme to join and may move from one to the other depending on the other benefits they offer, but the savings to the NHS offered by both schemes should be broadly the same NHS respondents to the consultation supported our position, but the pharmaceutical industry queried whether the Government had the powers to introduce a statutory payment system. Following a review of our legislative powers, we concluded that amendments should be made to clarify the existing powers to make it clear that the Government do have the power to introduce a payment mechanism in the statutory scheme. The Bill does that by clarifying the provisions in the NHS Act 2006 to put it beyond doubt that the Government can introduce a payment mechanism in the statutory scheme. The Bill also amends the 2006 Act so that it contains essential provisions for enforcement action. Payments due under either a future voluntary or statutory scheme would be recoverable through the courts if necessary. That would include the power to recover payments due from any company that leaves one scheme to join the other The powers proposed in the Bill to control the cost of medicines are a modest addition to the powers already provided for in the 2006 Act to control the price of and profit associated with medicines used by the health service. The powers are necessary to ensure that the Government have the scope and flexibility to respond to changes in the commercial environment. The intended application of the powers will, of course, be set out in regulations. We will provide illustrative regulations to reassure the House that we will be fair and proportionate in exercising the powers.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Jeremy Richard Streynsham Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): Our march on to the centre ground carries on apace. [Laughter.] In response to the hon. Gentleman’s fascinating point, I gently reassure him that our approach will be fair and proportionate. This is not about bringing in wide profit controls. It is important to say that we recognise—our view is shared across the House—the pharmaceutical industry’s incredibly important role in medical advances, and we want Britain to be its European centre of operations post-Brexit. Many Members have campaigned about dementia and we hope that we can get a cure—it could happen in this country—and we recognise that profits are what fund the research that makes such remarkable changes possible It is important, however, that we are able to see what profits are being generated from a company’s choice between the PPRS scheme and the statutory scheme as a clue to whether the company is being fair to the NHS, which is funded by taxpayers. That is why the Bill’s measures strike the right balance.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Mark Christopher Field (Conservative, Centre-right): I hope that not only the Opposition but Government Members are reassured by those comments in response to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris). Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to emphasise the great contribution that the pharmaceutical industry makes not only in this country but as a global player? As he says, the profit motive is important to ensuring the competition that allows for reform and the new drugs that will transform our lives and the lives of future generations.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Jeremy Richard Streynsham Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): I am happy to give that reassurance. As I said, this industry contributes £56 billion to the UK economy, with tens of thousands of jobs. When the Prime Minister talks about where she sees our competitive advantage, she talks, first, about financial services, and life sciences is the very next industry she mentions. I completely agree with right my hon. Friend about its incredible importance, not just to this country but to the future of humanity. That is why we seek in this Bill to establish a fair relationship between the NHS, which we have to represent as we are funding it through the tax system, and the pharmaceutical industry. It is also fair to say that there have been times when some pharmaceutical companies’ practices have been disappointing, and because we want to make sure that that does not happen and that we can continue with a harmonious and productive relationship we are proposing this Bill to the House.
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Michael Jon Wood (Conservative, Centre-right): Has my right hon. Friend made any assessment of how the prices of the drugs quoted in the article in The Times compare with those paid in other health services and by healthcare providers in other western European countries?
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-10-24
Topic: Health
Felicia Jane Beatrix Drummond (Conservative, Centre-right): In this regard, will my right hon. Friend be giving consideration to asking pharmacies that can prepare their own medicines—aqueous cream and things—as tremendous sums could be saved for the NHS? Will he be considering that in the overall scheme of getting information on the medicines they are providing?