Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2015-11-23.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the joint investigation by the British Medical Journal and The Times which found that contracts made by the Clinical Commissioning Groups with providers could financially benefit board members of the group.
Lord Prior of Brampton
Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) have legal duties under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to manage conflicts of interests when deciding which health services to procure. CCGs must manage any actual or perceived conflicts in a way that is transparent, fair, and protects the integrity of their decision making.
NHS England publishes guidance for CCGs on their responsibility to manage conflicts of interest. CCGs must have regard to this.
Monitor must ensure that CCGs follow National Health Service regulations on procurement, patient choice and competition, and have powers of investigation if these are not followed.
In their recent report ‘Managing conflicts of interest in NHS clinical commissioning groups’ (a copy of which is attached) the National Audit Office found that CCGs generally had arrangements in place to manage conflicts of interest to reduce the risk of commissioners’ decisions being improperly influenced.
The NAO made recommendations to the Department, NHS England, Monitor and CCGs to strengthen current arrangements and we would expect the bodies concerned to consider these carefully and take appropriate action in response.
Action is already being taken by NHS England including:
‒ strengthening its CCG assurance processes;
‒ commissioning an independent audit of conflicts of interest management in ten primary care co-commissioning arrangements, with a review to using the learning to strengthen current arrangements;
‒ providing training to CCG lay members on management of conflicts of interest in 2015, with more training planned for next year; and
‒ reviewing its own internal rules on conflicts of interest and the statutory guidance it issues to CCGs on management of conflicts of interest to ensure that arrangements are robust.
