1-20 of 108 results for subject:Finance
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.268 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.007 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Finance
- We searched for
- subject_t:Finance OR subject_ses:91257
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
My Lords, the care sector has never been more in the eye of the storm than during the Covid-19 pandemic. I pay tribute to all in the sector for the care they have given to so many people, under huge pressure and at no little risk to the workforce. As...
My Lords, the care sector has never been more in the eye of the storm than during the Covid-19 pandemic. I pay tribute to all in the sector for the care they have given to so many people, under huge pressure and at no little risk to the workforce. As...
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, and the Minister for his considered response. The debate has shown the very serious situation facing many of our care homes. I heard what the Minister said about support for the social care system. However, far from experiencing a protective shield, many care...
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, and the Minister for his considered response. The debate has shown the very serious situation facing many of our care homes. I heard what the Minister said about support for the social care system. However, far from experiencing a protective shield, many care...
Lords motion to regret the National Health Service Commissioning Board and Clinical Commissioning Groups (Responsibilities and Standing Rules) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 and the lack of a long-term plan to ensure the financial sustainability of care homes. Motion withdrawn.
Lords motion to regret the National Health Service Commissioning Board and Clinical Commissioning Groups (Responsibilities and Standing Rules) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 and the lack of a long-term plan to ensure the financial sustainability of care homes. Motion withdrawn.
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to thank my noble friend for inaugurating the debate and for the persuasive case that she put across on the need to improve neurological services. To echo the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I commend the three excellent briefings that I received from the...
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to thank my noble friend for inaugurating the debate and for the persuasive case that she put across on the need to improve neurological services. To echo the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I commend the three excellent briefings that I received from the...
My Lords, as this is such a general debate, I remind the House of my interests as president of GS1 UK, the Health Care Supply Association, the Royal Society of Public Health and the British Fluoridation Society, as a trustee of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists and as a consultant...
My Lords, as this is such a general debate, I remind the House of my interests as president of GS1 UK, the Health Care Supply Association, the Royal Society of Public Health and the British Fluoridation Society, as a trustee of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists and as a consultant...
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his detailed and careful explanation of the reason for this statutory instrument. I still regard it as a flawed set of regulations and I am not surprised that your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has reported it for the...
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his detailed and careful explanation of the reason for this statutory instrument. I still regard it as a flawed set of regulations and I am not surprised that your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has reported it for the...
I am sure of that, my Lords. I will just say to the Minister that I hope the spirit of this debate will be conveyed to him and NHS Improvement. I certainly have been very impressed by the chief executive’s words since his appointment, and of course the chairman, Ed...
I am sure of that, my Lords. I will just say to the Minister that I hope the spirit of this debate will be conveyed to him and NHS Improvement. I certainly have been very impressed by the chief executive’s words since his appointment, and of course the chairman, Ed...
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. We perhaps went rather wider than the terms of the regulations. I agree with the Minister that payment by results was brought in essentially to drive through reductions in waiting times by...
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. We perhaps went rather wider than the terms of the regulations. I agree with the Minister that payment by results was brought in essentially to drive through reductions in waiting times by...
Lords motion to approve. Amendment debated and withdrawn. Original motion agreed to on question.
Lords motion to approve. Amendment debated and withdrawn. Original motion agreed to on question.
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study was published in the Lancet yesterday. It showed that if the south-east of England were a country, it would come top of the 22 most industrialised countries in terms of health outcomes, whereas the north-west would be in the bottom range of countries. Does he accept that in the end this is a ministerial responsibility, and can he explain why allocations to CCGs, last year and this year, put much more money into the south-east of England than into the north-west?
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study was published in the Lancet yesterday. It showed that if the south-east of England were a country, it would come top of the 22 most industrialised countries in terms of health outcomes, whereas the north-west would be in the bottom range of countries. Does he accept that in the end this is a ministerial responsibility, and can he explain why allocations to CCGs, last year and this year, put much more money into the south-east of England than into the north-west?
The method of allocation is based around population, demographics and deprivation. The formula has developed over many years. The current formula was developed by the Nuffield Trust. There is no intention in the formula to skew the allocation from one part of the country to another. It is based in an independent and transparent way around population and deprivation.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with NHS England regarding proposals to change the funding allocation formula to Clinical Commissioning Groups.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with NHS England regarding proposals to change the funding allocation formula to Clinical Commissioning Groups.
My Lords, the Government have been discussing health funding, including progress on the fundamental review of allocations, at regular accountability meetings with NHS England. This NHS England-led review began in December 2012. The independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, ACRA, is providing advice on changes to the formula. NHS England will consider ACRA’s recommendations. Initial views should be available to inform 2014-15 allocations.
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer noble Lords to my health interests in the register.
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer noble Lords to my health interests in the register.
My Lords, my understanding of the formula is that it would move resources from areas where people have worse health outcomes to areas where they have better health outcomes. The noble Earl has said that he and his ministerial colleagues are in discussion with NHS England. Can he confirm that this is a decision for NHS England? If that is so, what is the nature of the discussion that has taken place between Ministers and NHS England? Is it being left to NHS England to decide?
My Lords, my understanding of the formula is that it would move resources from areas where people have worse health outcomes to areas where they have better health outcomes. The noble Earl has said that he and his ministerial colleagues are in discussion with NHS England. Can he confirm that this is a decision for NHS England? If that is so, what is the nature of the discussion that has taken place between Ministers and NHS England? Is it being left to NHS England to decide?
My Lords, very definitely yes. It is precisely to avoid any perception of political interference that we made NHS England responsible for the allocation of resources to clinical commissioning groups. However, we were very specific in the mandate, as the noble Lord will recall, that the principle on which NHS England has to operate is equal access for equal need, with particular attention being paid to health inequalities
while not destabilising the NHS. Those are the things we discuss in our regular meetings with NHS England but the actual nature of the formula that it will decide in its board meeting next month is entirely up to it.
My Lords, will the noble Earl arrange for NHS England to meet interested parliamentarians before it takes its decision at the meeting next month?
My Lords, will the noble Earl arrange for NHS England to meet interested parliamentarians before it takes its decision at the meeting next month?
My Lords, I will certainly feed that request back to NHS England.
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interests on the register.
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interests on the register.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation and understand that a flat-rate increase is to be given next year on top of the existing formula. Will he assure me that if the national Commissioning Board, after this review, decides not to go down the route that the previous Secretary of State, Mr Lansley, wanted this review to take—namely, to take money away from the poorer areas and give it to the well off areas—it will see no interference whatever from Ministers in relation to that decision?
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation and understand that a flat-rate increase is to be given next year on top of the existing formula. Will he assure me that if the national Commissioning Board, after this review, decides not to go down the route that the previous Secretary of State, Mr Lansley, wanted this review to take—namely, to take money away from the poorer areas and give it to the well off areas—it will see no interference whatever from Ministers in relation to that decision?
My Lords, that is a very important principle. It is one of the reasons why we felt that the NHS Commissioning Board should be responsible for the allocation of resources to CCGs and not Ministers, to avoid any perception of party-political interference. However, the Government’s mandate to the board makes clear that we would expect the board to place equal access for equal need at the heart of its approach to allocations. That is why ACRA has been charged with developing formulae independently to support the decision that the board takes.
My Lords, perhaps I may come back to that very important point. The fact is that the advisory committee, presumably following guidance from Ministers and officials, came up with a formula that would have taken money from poorer areas and allocated it to richer ones. That is why the national Commissioning Board decided not to accept it and to go for an across-the-board increase. In the noble Earl’s discussions on the mandate, will he ensure that the Commissioning Board is enabled to come to its own view on these decisions?
My Lords, perhaps I may come back to that very important point. The fact is that the advisory committee, presumably following guidance from Ministers and officials, came up with a formula that would have taken money from poorer areas and allocated it to richer ones. That is why the national Commissioning Board decided not to accept it and to go for an across-the-board increase. In the noble Earl’s discussions on the mandate, will he ensure that the Commissioning Board is enabled to come to its own view on these decisions?
Yes, my Lords. In this case, the board concluded that the formula proposed by ACRA accurately predicted the future spending requirements of CCGs, but it was concerned that the use of the formula on its own to redistribute funding would predominantly have resulted in higher levels of growth for areas that already have the best health outcomes compared with those with the worst outcomes. In other words, the formula on its own would have disadvantaged precisely the areas that the noble Lord is most concerned about. On the face of it, this would appear to be inconsistent with the board’s purpose, which is to improve health outcomes for all patients and citizens, and to reduce inequalities, which is a key aspect of the mandate.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the NHS Commissioning Board is discontinuing the poverty element in the funding formula for allocation to clinical commissioning groups.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the NHS Commissioning Board is discontinuing the poverty element in the funding formula for allocation to clinical commissioning groups.
My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that the board has not discontinued the poverty element of the funding formula. The board was concerned that while the formula provides an accurate model of healthcare need as currently met, if implemented it would target resources away from those areas with the worst health outcomes. It has therefore decided to give all clinical commissioning groups the same growth while launching a fundamental review of allocations.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will ensure that tackling inequalities is a key priority in healthcare when the funding formula for allocations to primary care trusts and clinical commissioning groups are weighted according to the number of elderly people; and, if so, how.[HL506]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will ensure that tackling inequalities is a key priority in healthcare when the funding formula for allocations to primary care trusts and clinical commissioning groups are weighted according to the number of elderly people; and, if so, how.[HL506]
The final round of primary care trust allocations was made on 14 December 2011 for 2012-13.
From 2013-14, the NHS Commissioning Board will allocate resources to clinical commissioning groups. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 contains the first ever legal duties on health inequalities for National Health Service commissioners and the Secretary of State.
The NHS Commissioning Board is under a duty to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities in access to, and the outcomes of, healthcare. This applies to everything it does, including its approach to allocating resources.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what criteria will govern the allocation of budgets to clinical commissioning groups by the NHS Commissioning Board.[HL254]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what criteria will govern the allocation of budgets to clinical commissioning groups by the NHS Commissioning Board.[HL254]
From 2013-14, the NHS Commissioning Board will allocate resources to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in a way that is consistent with the board’s duty to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities in access to healthcare services and the outcomes achieved for patients by healthcare services. We would expect this to support the principle of securing equivalent access to NHS services relative to the prospective burden of disease and disability.
The Secretary of State has asked the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation (ACRA), an independent expert committee, to support the development of the formula for allocations to CCGs. ACRA’s interim recommendations on the formula will be published.